this is a totally lightweight observation, but rahul seems to favor his mother's side while piyanka looks more like her father's side (especially indira). interesting illustration of the importance of sampling variance in phenotype because of the small number of traits we take in to generate a gestalt perception of resemblance.

Do you think they chose Rahul in part because he's ... fairer?

Do you think they chose Rahul in part because he's ... fairer?

i doubt it. he is so fair he looks foreign to be honest. priyanka isn't much darker anyhow (take a look at the pictures), i'm talking about features, she has "strong" features like her grandma. i can't imagine no one would be reminded of indira when they see her. rahul, i'm not sure. he looks somewhat like his dad, but he seems to look more italian than brown (the fact that his paternal grandfather was parsi means something too, they are closer genetically to iranians than they are to other south asians though some intermarriage has to have gone on looking at the frequencies). in any case, i recall talking about the nehru family with a friend once, and he googled rahul and priyanka, and his first response seeing rahul was, "dude, he looks like a frat boy."

Lastly, why Rahul and not Priyanka? Rahul left Harvard, and may not have finished at Cambridge or kept his job as a management consultant at Monitor [Link]. Priyanka was the charismatic sibling, and the one everybody thought would enter politics. Does India only want Nehru women if there are no Nehru men to be had?

First, I think Priyanka herself does not want to be an seeker of posts, even though she is a very active campaigner during elections. She is more into her family first.

Razib, Priyanka is quite fair too, if not more.

Look, they get votes, and they able energize the electorate. The Nehru-Gandhi family gets voted out, and then get voted in, they are out of power, come back in power again, and again. I am not sit here and pass judgments on the electorate - the largest one in the world.

Nehru staying on as PM for so long as been a disaster for India's development. Without Patel, Hyderabad probably becomes a mess like Kashmir, Tibet, and China-India relations.

Nehru would have been perfect as the Foreign Minister. Or at least maybe just a two term PM who actually bothered to mentor other people to take over from him. The guy's problem is he didn't realize his own limitations. He has some good intentions, but really was probably full of himself bcause he honestly thought he was the only one to lead India into modernity because he knew how to flirt with Edwina Mountbatten and his English education. Gandhi spent so much time worrying about swadeshi or other stuff, he should have spent time laying a template for future successions of leadership after Nehru. It's too bad they didn't look to the US for term limit models.

Nehru, Indira Gandhi all hung on to power for too long. Rajiv Gandhi did NOTHING to mentor future leaders to take over from him. It was one big family affair for these people. Indira Gandhi was rightfully distrustful of the male politicians who thought they could manipulate her as their puppet. But she got too bitter and paranoid and took the country down with her.

The worst the Nehrus did - the Beauracracy Raj. Worse than corruption.

It is an embarassment that the Congress party people are so freaking slavish that they would beg shamelessly for an unqualified Italian to lead the country instead of a decent guy like Manmohan Singh. They act like dogs looking for scraps from their master.

beg shamelessly for an unqualified Italian to lead the country instead of a decent guy like Manmohan Singh

I like and admire Manmohan Singh. He is a good PM.

However, he has never won an election through direct electorate (Lok Sabha, not Rajya Sabha) to data. He is the only PM of India who has never held a seat in Lok Sabha.

Politics is about winning elections.

It is not a NGO.

I meant: to date instead to data

Wait, doesnt the PM have to win a seat too? I am confused, why didn't the congress party have him run from a couple of seats, one being a safe one, like Indira Gandhi used to? If he didn't run, that makes it even worse because it is obvious Congress were doing their best to make sure Sonia had no alternative.

Wait, doesnt the PM have to win a seat too?

PM Manmohan Singh is a Rajya Sabha member.

Indira Gandhi used to run from the seat (Rae Barelli constituency) that was her husband's seat - It was not a safe Congress seat. Her husband was an independent MP, and often at odds with Congress. She got elected from that constituency after her husband died.

Once she ran through two seats - one in North India, and another in South India.

I think she lost Rae Bareilli in 1977, I am not sure.

She won very easily in South India as a MP in 1979, I think.

Even PM Vajapaye once ran at two seats (constituencies). You can technically do that but you have to resign from one of them, if elected at both.

There are no slam dunk seats.

Even though Rahul Gandhi is a sitting MP, it is very odd that one hardly gets to hear him talk - be it inside the parliament or outside. Even during campaign one hardly heard him - usually he is used as a prop to attract crowds.

So one is not sure where he stands on array of issues an elected official has to face - having led a privileged life he is neither aware of problems common people face nor he knows anything about administration.

Not to mention Rahul Gandhi's girl friend is Colombian - reportedly daughter of a don there. And rumours have circulated for years about Rahul's intellectual capacity - some even claiming he is bit "slow" as in ret@rded!

So all in all really nothing to see here folks. Will be tragic if he is indeed elected as PM.

It is an embarassment that the Congress party people are so freaking slavish that they would beg shamelessly for an unqualified Italian to lead the country instead of a decent guy like Manmohan Singh.

I agree that the Congress party "leaders" are sycophants and toadies, desperate for a 'charismatic' figure to pull in the votes, ergo Sonia Gandhi. I find it quite distressing that she is seen as charismatic and a vote puller, and would be quite upset if she were to become the PM. However, let us at least grant that she had the wisdom to step aside for Manmohan Singh, inspite of the tremendous pressure she was under from her party in 2004 to become the PM. She may well have been grooming Rahul, and have stepped aside primarily to smooth the way for him later, not an ennobling motive.

But note that Manmohan Singh is now PM, while never having won a popular election to the Lok Sabha, something which goes against the spirit if not the letter of the Westminster parliamentary system. In fact, his latest election, to a fourth consecutive term in the Rajya Sabha, the Upper House of the Indian Parliament, was unopposed, and from Assam of all places. While granting that he is no politician, this is also something that I find discomfiting; it is undemocratic. In addition to which, I sometimes think he might be entirely too brilliant to be leading the country even if he were to have won a popular election. Politicians need not, perhaps should not, be PhDs in economics, leave alone Nobelists, West Wing wisdom notwithstanding.

have to yet to see the slightest shred of evidence that he is fit to be, in any way, shape or form, the future pm of india. read in india today or outlook that his family tried to discredit much of what narasimha rao did, or take credit for it, and dissuaded rao's family from pursuing a state funeral in delhi. i thought at some point congress was grooming the younger scindia - after his father's death - for an important role in Congress?

Yes, Indira Gandhi lost Rae Barelli in 1977.

She got re-elected as a MP from Tamil Nadu later.

In next election, she contested from two seats - part of show womanship - politics of pan-indian electability.

Jay Prada, once a Bollywood star is now a MP from UP, and she used to be MP from AP before that.

"However, let us at least grant that she had the wisdom to step aside for Manmohan Singh, inspite of the tremendous pressure she was under from her party in 2004 to become the PM."

was it wisdom, or was it the long chat Abdul Kalam is said to have had with her, after which she suddenly "renounced" the post?

There are no slam dunk seats.

but there are strongholds. for example, amethi, where rahul gandhi won by some ridiculous margin in 2004 despite having no prior experience.

Not to mention Rahul Gandhi's girl friend is Colombian

i wonder how the indian populace will react when ms. raquel castro gandhi is nominated as the general secretary of the inc in 2025.

And rumours have circulated for years about Rahul's intellectual capacity - some even claiming he is bit "slow" as in ret@rded!

considering that the Indian press still refers to Sonia Gandhi as "Cambridge educated" despite the fact that she only went to an English ESL class in the town of Cambridge, the chances are slim to none that they will pick up on this.

was it wisdom, or was it the long chat Abdul Kalam is said to have had with her

If so, (and I hadn't heard this before) at least she saw the "wisdom" in what Abdul Kalam might have said! That he rendered such advice might explain why he never got a second term.

A lot of carpet baggers in India

Sushma Swaraj(BJP) was elected from South Delhi (LS), Uttharakhad (RS), Madhya Pradesh (RS)' lost in Karnataka (LS)

George Fernandes went from a Member of Parliament from Bombay to an MP from Bihar

Manmohan Singh is an MP from Assam

Kush,

Nehru represented Phulpur IIANM. Indu took on the mantle of Rae Bareilly from her late husband IIANM. The Congress is a party of feudal interests as are many of the regional parties that have sprung up from its mould. Pawar's NCP, the DMK and PMK in TN, the Biju Janata Dal in Orissa, and large parts of the Akali Dal. The CPI(M) has smartly kept the children out of the party, instead setting up handsome business empires for them. Jyoti Basu's son and nephew run decent sized business empires in WB. A few otehrs in the North (HS Surjeet for eg.) have done the same. The CPI(M) in any case is a very business like political party running a vast network of businesses in Kerala. The BJP seemed immune for some time, but now it too is seeing leaders' children jockeying for office.

I do think it was Abdul Kalam.

They were two reasons, both realpolitik:

a) First, the Sonia and Congress knew that her as PM would not last full term - BJP would make so much capital out of it, and stage a full fledged comeback - the government would not be able to function even on day to day basis - She knew Rahul Gandhi would never get a shot as PM if she became PM. Her PMship would be rattled daily with her Indianness that he would be tainted too.

b) In single shot, she became the king (queen) maker, by stepping down, she is more powerful now she would have been in a shortlived PMship.

I do not think it was Abdul Kalam.

he is so fair he looks foreign to be honest. priyanka isn't much darker anyhow (take a look at the pictures), i'm talking about features, she has "strong" features like her grandma. i can't imagine no one would be reminded of indira when they see her

The biggest difference in their looks is that she has a big hooked nose like her mother while Rahul looks like a snub nosed dravidian who has rubbed litres of 'Fair and Handsome' creme on himself.

Rahul looks chubby, though thats not the point here.

It must be the name, but does the party have so little to offer that they have to ride on name recognition alone?

bingo!

OTOH, keep in mind the old saw that democracy is like a raft--worst form of gov't, except for all the others--Desh is cert. way out-performing its neighbors--my best wishes are with the protesters in burma, tho' a casual knowledge of Sri Lankan politics cert. suggests buddhist monks are not always a panacea.

There are other dynasties in the American Congress or in various governors’ offices.

There are also "lesser" dynasties in other offices. I'd mention William Howard Taft IV in this context, whose family's sensible naming convention makes the dynasty easier to track. His son is WHT V.

WHT IV is the third member of his family to hold the office of Secretary of Defence, though in his case only briefly, for a few months:

following his great-great-grandfather Alphonso Taft (under President Ulysses S. Grant) and his great-grandfather William Howard Taft (under President Theodore Roosevelt).

WHT I was, of course US President 1909-1913, right after Theodore Roosevelt, who was an older cousin of FDR, the longest serving US President.

Mayavati, Lalloo Yadav and other "serious" north indian politicians will give this guy such a beating with their chappals that his gora face will become quite laal.

It is another matter that both Lalloo and Mayavati have not the slight interest in anything progressive or any worry about the lousy literacy rate in north india or its permananent maoist/casteist wars. But at least we will be rid of this loser "babalog" quite soon...

Yeah, Ford, bush I, Clinton I, bush II, Kerry, Clinton II all went to Yale--this is why I give these bastards $$ in spite of my first-order preferences--have to make sure rob or robette II goes too--Desh has nothing on the US in terms of pol. dynasties & insiders.

WHT I was, of course US President 1909-1913

i would just like to mention that taft holds the record for being the heaviest president in office. in fact, they had to fit a new giant bathtub in the white house when he showed up.

also do not forget senator prescott bush, the granddaddy, who was a director of firms that helped the nazis.

Rahul isn't all bad.

Kush, it's not the electorate, it's the constitution.

Sonia, who was a Nehru by blood, not birth.

Ennis, I reckon she's a half-Nehru by marriage, not blood, and of course confusingly named Gandhi, but Lordy, must she get to appoint the Head of State and the Head of Government straight out of the Rajya Sabha, and then appoint her son the General Secre4tary of her party too, all while she's a sitting President of a ruling party? This is insane. It is how a family can do the dynastic cha-cha-- it just happened to be this one, and these two very very ambitious women, and I do mean ambitious in a bad way, but this constitution needs a major overhaul.

Don't forget, y'all, that at the time Sonia was poised to become PM, the BJP organized nation-wide protests and most importantly, that Sushma Swaraj threatened to shave her head, wear a white sari and eat nothing but roasted chick peas if Sonia Gandhi became Prime Minister.

If this was a Shakespeare play, Sonia would understand-- or someone would- that she is gravely endangering her son, the mamma's boy and frat boy, here in NYC with Mummy right after his brand new appointment.

sorry, that should have read,"shave her head, wear a white sari and eat nothing but roasted chick peas off the floor."

that's the floor where she would be sleeping.

Family political dynasties are a bad idea.

Can anyone explain to me why people support them in a democracy?

It makes no sense- at all!

Of course, I would be remiss to omit that the Italians in nyc & new haven are rejoicing that the plan of the Vatican to control India is all now all but complete--they invite me to these festivities because I would contemplate voting for Giuliani, unlike the "proper" AbDs.
;-)

It makes no sense- at all!

people are stupid. they don't vote based on "rational interest," on average. i have read that a minority of those who voted for george w. bush in 2000 confused him with george h.w. bush who was president from 1988-1992. similarly, in 1968 eugene mccarthy was popular early on in part because of support from people who thought he was joe mccarthy. i wouldn't be surprised if a substantial number of americans are pro-clinton because they think that bill clinton is running again ;-) [that's a joke]

dravidian lurker, good points both. There's actually a picture of Taft on a buffalo while US Governor in the Philippines, where he looks about as heavy as the buffalo. He also invented the memorable phrase Little Brown Brother to describe Filipinos.

rob, WH Taft I also went to Yale undergrad, but returned in later life to teach at Yale Law. You're totally on to something there. In fact, Senator Prescott Bush also went to Yale.

Goodnight guys and girls!

Ennis, you're just rehashing the pedestrian TOI-editorial arguments about the dynastic character that is seemingly exclusive to the Congress.

It must be the name, but does the party have so little to offer that they have to ride on name recognition alone?

Naturally - whereas all the other parties with non-dynasitc leadership have so much to offer its like a talent, commmitment and political integrity bazaar. Come on. Political success in India is hitched to a lot of horses, but an MPP from Kennedy is not one of them. Rahul Gandhi, by virtue of his education and the sincerity of his political aims, is head-and-shoulders better material for party leadership - and definitely policy making - than most politicians in the business.

Is that the reason he's the Gen Sec'y at 37? Clearly, no. Does the fact that he's only the Gen Sec'y at 37 because he's a Gandhi mean he has less to offer than most Indian political leaders? Emphatically, no. Nepotism is a curious business in India, and politics generally - it is a natural, if disagreeable, part of the system of advancement. But when the entire system of patronage and advancement is weak, nepotism isnt an automatic indication that a candidate is inferior.

Don't forget that Rahul Mahajan - noted wife-beater and cokehead - has also been into politics by the BJP; thats a reason to worry, because, independent of his route to political prominence, he's a wife-beater and a cokehead.

Rahul Gandhi? Its just a predictable, uninspiring reality that he reached where he has. But that doesnt mean that he, or the Congress Party, are necessarily poorer prospects for it.

Okay, I regret using the phrase "and the sincerity of his political aims" so bluntly; all I mean is, I have good reason to believe that he's not in it for the money.

She got re-elected as a MP from Tamil Nadu later.

Nope, Indra got elected from Karnataka..

I think people are giving too much weightage to the Nehru/Gandhi dynasty.. Maybe Congress sycophants could think so.. But I don't think Sonia / Rahul are vote pullers.. If you look at the percentage of votes and seats that Congress gets now it's far less compared to what Nehru / Indra got.

Congress in the current parliament has just 145 seats just 7 more than the BJP. The future is going to be with the party that forms smart coalitions. BJP lost the last elections because of wrong alliances in Tamilnadu and AP. Indian elections have become more of an aggregate of state elections in the absence of any emotional issue (like war with Pakistan etc..)

Rahul Gandhi, by virtue of his education

What do you mean? He transferred from Harvard to somewhere called "Rollins College" in Florida, and it's still not clear if he finished an undergraduate degree.

India currently has a Ph.D. in economics as its PM. Now, I don't think that's necessary, nor do I think that Ph.D.s necessarily make good PMs, but you're saying that Rahul is better than average in terms of candidates who might be considered for the PMs post? Out of a billion people, Rahul is not a weak candidate even though he shows no political acumen or signs of past success? That means George W. Bush would be an above average candidate for India (2 degrees, business success, past experience, independently wealthy), even though ...

Does this man speak Hindi?

I think comparisons to the Bush family are a little unfair. Prescott Bush might have been a senator but Bush Sr. fought in WW2, won the Distinguished Flying Cross, lost a Senate campaign in Texas and despite being a Northeasterner won a Congressional seat in Texas, was the head of the CIA and a two time Vice President before he ran for President.
Even Dubya ran for and lost a Congressional election in the late 70s and also beat the all powerful and brilliant Ann Richards against heavy odds (nobody thought he could take her down) for the Governorship of Texas which he won again before running for President.
The Sonia/Rajv/Rahul situation is a little different with all of them running from safe seats and being anointed by party bosses to run the Congress Party.

ennis,

you left out the Solomon Bandaranayake/Sirimavo Bandaranayake, dynastic succession (he was cut-down by a religion-of-peace Buddhist monk, Talduwe Somarama) and then the much-later emergence of their daughter, Chandrika.

The wife and daughter turned out to be far more decisive and warlike than him, as well as less devoted to the disastrous (for today's business climate) socialist policies he followed and less short-sighted (he initiated the sinhala-only legislation by making it the official language), although all of them were pretty much failures in the long view.

nay to nepotism. Rahul seems to be the consensus pick of image consultants.

A little off topic Pravin, but Kashmir is in part in the mess it is now precisely because of Vallabhai Patel.

By the way, I have heard and not sure if this is true, that the Gandhi family is able to attract votes simply because a lot of ignorant voters think there is an actual blood relation with Mohandas Gandhi? Can anyone else extrapolate this further.

why not priyanka? her last name is not gandhi. i hope rahul has only daughters so that the 'gandhi' dynasty ends.

From original article, "It reflects quite poorly on the quality of India’s institutions. What does it say that Congress thinks Rahul will give it an advantage in the next elections, despite his poor political showing in UP where he got schooled by the BSP?"

--> That entire line could have been dispensed with. When did congress become synonymous with India ?

#5 Pravin
Nehru staying on as PM for so long as been a disaster for India's development.

--> How is Nehru's tenure the cause of india's development morass ? Did time stop in 1964 after Nehru's death ? Or whatever other leaders did after 1964, doesnt matter ?

The guy's problem is he didn't realize his own limitations. He has some good intentions, but really was probably full of himself bcause he honestly thought he was the only one to lead India into modernity because he knew how to flirt with Edwina Mountbatten and his English education.

--> And this about the same Nehru who took care to ensure democratic procedures took root in the nation ? The same Nehru who encouraged debate ? The same Nehru who wrote anonymous letter to newspaper warning of unlimited power vested in him ? If congresswallahs were so spineless that they couldnt find a leader to challenge and replace Nehru, why blame Nehru and throw in personal attacks for a good measure ?

I am not arguing for Nehru as a pristine leader but he was a man of the times, someone India should be rightfully proud to have had as its leader. As for his progeny's efforts, the less said the better.

It's too bad they didn't look to the US for term limit models.

--> The tiny problem with hindsight is it happens after the fact.

#44 Jing
A little off topic Pravin, but Kashmir is in part in the mess it is now precisely because of Vallabhai Patel.

--> This is the first time I am hearing Patel being blamed for Kashmir. Care to elaborate ?

i hope rahul has only daughters so that the 'gandhi' dynasty ends.

but if they marry some random dude named wally nehru...

It was Patel's ambition of a hegemonistic India coupled Nehru's sentimentalism that led to the Kashmir issue. Ultimately Patel was the key actor in sending in the British Indian army into the region to evict the Pathan tribals. Patel's modus operandi was one of whats mine is mine and whats yours is also mine. Considering he had also been instrumental in coordinating the economic blockade followed by military seizure of Junagadh and Hyderabad, both Hindu majority areas ruled by Muslim princes based on the notion of popular sovereignty. The backing of Hari Singh was a political mistake.

I guess whether or not one considers Patel a great man depends on your qualifications of greatness. I have oft heard Indians wax lyrical about the early death of Patel and how he would have been much better than Nehru. His legacy was the retaining of half of the territory of Kashmir but also at the cost of tens of thousands dead and a constant source of friction with Pakistan. Then again his actual goal was the destruction of Pakistan and he had not managed that, though they seem to be doing a good enough job on their own as is.

From original article, "It reflects quite poorly on the quality of India’s institutions. What does it say that Congress thinks Rahul will give it an advantage in the next elections, despite his poor political showing in UP where he got schooled by the BSP?"

--> That entire line could have been dispensed with. When did congress become synonymous with India ?

I said India because using a dynastic candidate has worked before and they have reasons to believe it will work again. That's about India, not just the Congress party.

Also, if Rahul becomes PM, he will be PM of India and not just of the party alone.

Technically, as the fourth generation, Rahul would not be Nehru:TNG (That was his grandmother) but Nehru:Voyager instead ...

Do you think they chose Rahul in part because he's ... fairer?

Also - don't want to nit but the correct name for Sanjay's and Maneka's son is Varun - actually Varun Feroze Gandhi !( not Varum )

Ennis,

Newsweek apologized to Rahul Gandhi over inaccuricies in the article that alleged that Rahul didn't complete his degrees or kept his job, you can find details here.
And I agree with Runa that the fair skin comment is in poor taste.

#48 Jing
It was Patel's ambition of a hegemonistic India coupled Nehru's sentimentalism that led to the Kashmir issue.

--> Not a strong India but a hegemonistic one ? Where does one end and the other begin ?

I would agree with the sentimentalism on the part of Nehru. He should have limited his involvement in foreign policy.

Ultimately Patel was the key actor in sending in the British Indian army into the region to evict the Pathan tribals. Patel's modus operandi was one of whats mine is mine and whats yours is also mine.

--> So, if you have a rabid mob of looters and rapists(backed by the venerable and duplicitous founder of Pakistan) descending on a territory in dispute in your neighbourhood, you, as home minister, should sit on your hands or maybe, invite them for a cup of tea ?

My opinion of Patel is he thought whats mine is mine.

The backing of Hari Singh was a political mistake.

--> So, what would have been the course of action for Patel ? Set popular sovereignty in stone and proceed to take decisions based on it ? Or realise the conditions on the ground presented an opportunity for the newly formed India and strike one for it ?

I have oft heard Indians wax lyrical about the early death of Patel and how he would have been much better than Nehru.

--> Count me as one who(in hindsight) think India was robbed of Patel's talents too early but as for him being better than Nehru, I would disagree. They both became great as part of a team(in addition to others) but each of them, on their own, would have been a much lesser contributor.

Which, for me, was crucial for the success of India as opposed to the basket case of Pakistan. Jinnah, for all his talents, didnt have(or failed to develop) the bench strength that Nehru could call upon.

#49 Ennis
I said India because using a dynastic candidate has worked before and they have reasons to believe it will work again. That's about India, not just the Congress party.

--> It is about India when the dynasty is the main vote getter. I dont think that is the case here, especially when the congress, by itself, is a mere shell of its old self. If people voted for manmohan singh's performance(in the next election with Rahul Gandhi as head of Congress), that would still count as indian vote for Nehru dynasty ? Or would it count only if congress campaigned on the platform of bringing dynasty back ?

Also, if Rahul becomes PM, he will be PM of India and not just of the party alone.

--> He becomes PM only when he is chosen by Congress. So, after Congress chooses him, you want a rider that dynastic candidates will not be accepted ? I can understand attributing poor quality to congress leadership(which I think you did in yur original post). I just dont agree with assigning poor quality to india's institutions on account of dynastic obsession of congress.

A simple request to folks to please use the Quote/Italis/Bold - some kind of demarcation - when quoting other people's comments and responding with your own. It makes for a much clearer reading, and the SM folks have very thoughtfully provided tools to that end. Much thanks! :)

His legacy was the retaining of half of the territory of Kashmir but also at the cost of tens of thousands dead and a constant source of friction with Pakistan. Then again his actual goal was the destruction of Pakistan and he had not managed that, though they seem to be doing a good enough job on their own as is.

False. Patel wasn't into the brother brother stuff Nehru spouted about neighbors. But he was more realistic. The Kashmir issue was a mess because Nehru didn't commit to a single strategy. He wanted to have it both ways. Patel wanted clarity. Clarity saves you 50 years of deaths that outnumbered the extra deaths in the year clarity could have been achieved.

Also, I do not see any evidence that Patel cared about the destruction of Pakistan. IF anything, if I remember properly, he went along with partition and saw it as something that would bring about more manageable entities. And let's face it. Theere is rarely any consistency in how countries go after their interests(addressing the Hyd and Kashmir issues). Patel was not shy in going after Indian interests. India did not care that the Nizam didn't want to join India and went after him for one reason - it was untenable for a mini Pakistan type nation to be embedded in the heart of South India where there were bound to be rebellions by the Hindu populace. With all the tensions going on, it just didn't make sense. The U.S. would have done the same thing.

Kashmir is in the mess because Nehru lacked the ruthlessness to settle once and for all the issue. Nehru tried to act like he was above the fray, but he was territorially possessive too. That's where India exacerbated their problems with China on border issues. Nehru lacked the mentality to give up areas but lacked the will to fight for them hard. Do one or the other or you will end up with 50 year messes like Kashmir.

I personally think India should take the first step and set up a template to grant Kashmir independence. Remove the Ladakh and similar non Muslim dominated areas and make it a separate state. India could negotiate a security presence for 30-50 years that would not harm India's security interests by ceding Kashmir. (really, can it be any worse?) Kashmir is such a security nightmare, it is no longer a tourist attraction that India could even brag about. Just let it go and let them reunite with Pak Kashmir.

As Lucius Malfoy warns Harry in the movie version of CoS:

"Mark my words, Harry Potter. You'll meet the same sticky end as your parents one of these days. They were meddlesome fools too."

At the very best, Rahul Gandhi will face ignominious defeat at the hands (fingers) of the Indian voters. At the very worst, a sticky end like his father and grandmother.

ennis - "Do you think they chose Rahul in part because he's ... fairer?"

he is not any more fairer than jawahar lal nehru or indira gandhi, both kashmiri pandits, whose color played no role in their becoming prime ministers of india.
indeed, since 1947, numerous light skinned, light browned haired and blue/green eyed kashmiri pandits have held positions of great import [d.p.dhar, m.l.fotedar,t.n.kaul, p.n.dhar, t.n.raina etc..] in various indian administrations, and i seriously doubt that the sole criteria for their jobs was the relative pastiness of their epidermis.

anybody who has a passable knowledge of indian politics knows the reason rahul baba was ensconced as general secy. of congress i party - he lost uttar pradesh and he is the scion of nehru - gandhi dynasty.

I am sure that the only place that the color of his skin is being discussed is here on SM. Please can we get over this obsession?

Runa-ji, hello. While I agree that SM may be the only place that issue is being discussed openly, I don't think it is entirely irrelevant to either Rahul's political future, or indeed, to the entire history of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. All of the Nehru-Gandhis, perhaps including Motilal, but certainly everyone including and following Jawaharlal - have been extremely fair of skin.

One of the main factors that help them get elected from Rae Bareli or Phulpur or Amethi is that the people there have internalized white skin privilege - they simply assume and expect and demand that their 'leaders' be fairer than them, and if they were indeed white or European, that's no problem either. I don't say that whites or Europeans should not be elected from Indian constituencies, but when the internalized white skin privilege is one of the main reasons why it happens, that must be brought up and discussed. And the Congress toadies, rather than confront this not-so-subtle internalization of the white skin privilege, see in it the "vote catching power of the 'charismatic' Nehru-Gandhis", perpetuating the cycle.

And a minimicro-nit: Maneka's son is Feroze Varun Gandhi (FVG not VFG) who apparently expressed himself regarding Sonia's 'foreign origin' back in 2004:

"My nephew Feroze Varun Gandhi is embarking on a political career, and I wish him all success," Ms. Gandhi said while talking to presspersons at an Inspection Bungalow on the outskirts of this southern Orissa town this evening.

Asked to comment on Mr. Varun Gandhi's statement on her foreign origin issue, Ms. Gandhi said: "It's a free democratic country and everyone is free to say anything."

Chachaji,

I think the whole internalized white skin privilege is a stretch of imagination, I am sure you don't have anything to back this up and I persoanlly feel it is better not to derail this thread any further. I feel the Nehru/Gandhi pale skin is only incidental to their political clout.
The parties that are successful in UP, BSP and Samajwadi parties all have leaders like Mulayam, Amar Singh, Mayawati etc. that are not pale skinned and have been in power for the last two or three elections.

anybody who has a passable knowledge of indian politics knows the reason rahul baba was ensconced as general secy. of congress i party

per se, general secretary of congress party does not mean much, there are number of them - often a mix of different religions, regions, vote banks, power centers. same with bjp, etc.

however, the president of a political party in india is quite important - orders of magnitude more than - what the chairman of democratic/ republican party is in USA

to be a PM, you do not have to be a general secretary first of any party. your party have to choose you as their PM candidate if they are invited to form the government.

rahul g. made one of the general secretary of cong (i) is for slowly bringing him on the national forefront, and grooming him for future bigger roles later
however,

kush - i couldn't agree with you more.

One of the main factors that help them get elected from Rae Bareli or Phulpur or Amethi is that the people there have internalized white skin privilege - they simply assume and expect and demand that their 'leaders' be fairer than them

Indira Gandhi did a tremendous amount for Amethi/Rae Bareilly.Poured a lot of money into development there ( Same as other politicians did for their pocket burroughs) Its a well known fact that nobody can win there against the Gandhi-Nehru dynasty.Sanjay Singh - a son of teh soil form UP - tried and failed.

To say that fair skin played a part in it, is IMHO, a leap of imagination caused by our preconceived notions not reality.
Continuing a discussion on this would be feeding into those preconceived notions.

56-'india could negotiate a security presence for 30-50 years by ceding Kashmir. Just let it go and let them unite with pak kashmir' Would kashmiri citizens of india have any thing to say to that? Would you like to secure another 30-50 years by giving away Ladaky or the northeast states to India's other friendly neighbor? Maybe we could give up on the concept of India as a nation altogether?

oops, Ladaky meant Ladakh

This is a good read on the topic. The author was a gen. sec. with BJP till recently.

'india could negotiate a security presence for 30-50 years by ceding Kashmir. Just let it go and let them unite with pak kashmir'

What next ? Let Assam go, then Nagaland , then Mizoram and while we are at it - why not MAhrashtra ,Gujarat etc? Please, lets get realistic here.

I am reminded of a story that happened during the 1st Indo Chinese war. One politican said "Let the Chinese grab the land.Not a blade of grass grows there in any case" And I beleive it was Patel who answered ":"Take a look at my head- not a hair grows there.Does that mean that if someone wants to cut my head, I should offer it to them?"

chachaji - "All of the Nehru-Gandhis, perhaps including Motilal, but certainly everyone including and following Jawaharlal - have been extremely fair of skin."

so what?
if what you say were correct, only fair skinned pols [there is no dearth of those in india] would be elected to any office in india, no?

so Rahul is not the sharpest tool in the kit--not to worry. That's what they said about dubya.

this entire discussion of fairness in the context of the gandhi succession is completely off-base. look at the local politicians in up/bihar - mayawati, mulayam singh yadav, laloo prasad yadav, and so on. in all my knowledge of indian electoral politics, fairness has never been an issue (by that logic, advani should have been a no-brainer over vajpayee as pm). things like caste, communities, religions, and lineages play a role, not the consumption of fair and lovely/handsome.

I am reminded of a story that happened during the 1st Indo Chinese war. One politican said "Let the Chinese grab the land.Not a blade of grass grows there in any case" And I beleive it was Patel who answered ":"Take a look at my head- not a hair grows there.Does that mean that if someone wants to cut my head, I should offer it to them?"

But if you had a tumor, would you keep it? Kashmir is in that phase now. You can't force people to be something they don't want to be. India was never one big country before independence. Lahore was probably more integral to India than Kashmir. Compromises have to be made. The time for action was back then. India fucked up their chance to consolidate Kashmir back then thanks to Nehru. Let people become their own country. Russia did not lose its identity by the breakup of the USSR.

The thing is this- when it costs that much money and lives to keep a state in the union that was never emotionally fully integrated, why bother?

I agree about the myths of fairness and politics in India. Fairness gets you a good Bollywood role. But it doesn't guarantee you anything in Indian politics. Despite the dynastic emphasis of the Congress party and caste based pandering by some parties, there is a lot more diversity in Indian politics than our politics in the US.

The thing is this- when it costs that much money and lives to keep a state in the union that was never emotionally fully integrated, why bother?

Should Hyderabad also be a separate state? Would you solve the Palestinian -Israeli conflict the same way?

The thing is this- when it costs that much money and lives to keep a state in the union that was never emotionally fully integrated, why bother?

Wow.. there is nothing more i can say but wow..

If you look at the history of the separatist movement in Kashmir, it has only recently (10-15 years) become really violent because of the externally funded terrorist organizations.. The role of the local Kashmiri in most militant activity in Kashmir is in fact a minority..

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7562829925012382816&q=rahul+gandhi&total=10&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

I guess with all the discussion about him, someone might as well provide a video link of how the guy speaks in public. He does speak Hindi. And I noticed a big pic of Priyanka Gandhi. I guess they are pretty much saying that even a non political member of the family is more important than anyone else in the party's membership.

Adding to 74, or Belgium?

If you look at the history of the separatist movement in Kashmir, it has only recently (10-15 years) become really violent because of the externally funded terrorist organizations..

this might be, but there is definitely a lot of disenchantment locally with india given that the army has ridden roughshod these past years during the conflict.

personally, i think there is enough blame to go around vis-a-vis kashmir, and the only reasonable (and potentially practical) solution would be a semi autonomous province in the disputed area, although that might still have the bad effect of leading to de facto ethnic separation, and all the associated trauma of displacement. that is the only reason i would not be for a separate state.

kashmir and hyderabad are not equivalent, hyderabad is a province right in the center of india and would not be able to lead an independent existence in any case.

Pravin, Should Hyderabad also be a separate state? Would you solve the Palestinian -Israeli conflict the same way?

although that might still have the bad effect of leading to de facto ethnic separation, and all the associated trauma of displacement. that is the only reason i would not be for a separate state

Not might - it will definitely lead to ethnic separation.
This is a slippery slope and mere expediency of the geography of Kashmir is in no way a valid argument for leting it secede.Why stop at Kashmir only then? Why not Assam,Sikkim et al?

It would be nice to hear from a Kashmiri Pandit - who are as displaced as the Sri Lankan Tamils for example- what they think.Anyone here?

I'd like to really see the same argument applied to the Palestinian -Israeli conflict and other disputed teritories around the World.In one fell swoop, we commenters here at SM would have solved every border dispute

Priyanka gets my vote simbly because she's super hot!

I say Rahul Gandhi never makes it to PM. It simply will not work out. The face of the electorate and its priorities are changing. Younger people do not identify with these dynastic politics and are more likely to root for a person they identify with. The Congress will never come to power with this guy at the helm.

Not might - it will definitely lead to ethnic separation.

This is a slippery slope and mere expediency of the geography of Kashmir is in no way a valid argument for leting it secede.Why stop at Kashmir only then? Why not Assam,Sikkim et al?

slippery slope arguments never lead anywhere. everyone draws different lines on the slippery slope. nations have no ontological right to exist, they're negotiated. i could name many reasons why assam is different from kashmir (and more less different from the central tendency of india than kashmir, the hindu majority being one primary one). you might not find the argument persuasive, but that doesn't invalidate the coherence of the perspective.

Why stop at Kashmir only then? Why not Assam,Sikkim et al?

there is a difference between the realities on the ground and majority opinions in assam and sikkim, and kashmir. the same is true of israel-palestine. this is a bogus strawman.

the specter of religious conflict in kashmir was raised the moment religion based partition was proposed and executed, and i do not see how insisting on holding on to kashmir is improving their current day-to-day life. i have kashmiri pandit friends who have been displaced from there already, and it would be wonderful if we could foresee a future of harmony there, but i do not see a reality where they will get back their lives. hanging on to kashmir by force is not the solution.

Assam and Sikkim are different cases. You want a slippery slope? Those states are a major slippery slope for Chinese mischief potential.

Dude, Razib.

Kashmir is a very tricky situation.

First, the demographics of Kashmir is not what it was in 1946-47. Hindus have be driven out.

What happens with Askai Chin? Do you think China will roll over (like our esteemed SM commenters) and give that region up. Last I heard they have been talking of giving up Tibet too.

How do even defend Leh, and Jammu? When you have lost all the high ground to Azad Kasmhir, and China.

Do we have some commenter here on Chinese payroll? It seems like that.

PS: Indian soldiers entered Kashmir after Hari Singh had signed the ascension to the Union of India. He asked his Kashmir to be defended from during Operation Gibraltar.

#67 Runa
I am reminded of a story that happened during the 1st Indo Chinese war. One politican said "Let the Chinese grab the land.Not a blade of grass grows there in any case" And I beleive it was Patel who answered ":"Take a look at my head- not a hair grows there.Does that mean that if someone wants to cut my head, I should offer it to them?"

--> I didnt know there were multiple indo-chinese wars. To my recollection, there was one in '62 by which time Patel was already dead for a long time.

#71 Pravin

But if you had a tumor, would you keep it? Kashmir is in that phase now. You can't force people to be something they don't want to be.

--> Removing the tumour can involve treating it with medicines, right ? A tumour once removed from the body has no self-sustaining properties of its own, right ? So you would rather allow kashmir as a region to starve out of existence instead of co-opting along with your growth ?

India was never one big country before independence. Lahore was probably more integral to India than Kashmir. Compromises have to be made. The time for action was back then. India fucked up their chance to consolidate Kashmir back then thanks to Nehru. Let people become their own country. Russia did not lose its identity by the breakup of the USSR.

--> Why is this trite piece of crap being bandied about as the cause to current day problems? Given the fact of india's integration after independence, does it mean everytime there is trouble with a state, we give it away ? Maybe we should go back to 500 petty kingdoms.

Break up of USSR just led to multiplication of unsavoury characters leading small states in a region where there was one(communist head honcho). To argue Russia did not lose its identity brushes aside a much bigger problem , the instability of that neighbourhood as a whole.

you might not find the argument persuasive, but that doesn't invalidate the coherence of the perspective

I would like to see the same spirit towards secession of say Vermont or Alaska from USA as has been expressed towards Kashmir.

How easy it is to say "Let Kashmir secede" and loftily pronounce that "nations have no ontological right to exist, they're negotiated".

Kashmir is a very tricky situation.

1) i don't care that much about it, and sure it's tricky
2) i'm not arguing about this topic with you, i've gotten into it with indians on the web about this topic and it's like talking about pedophile rights in a room full of parents with elementary school children
3) speaking of which, i was just saying that slippery slope arguments never lead anywhere. you find them plausible or persuasive depending on the angle of the slope that you assume, to use a metaphor. i'm sure runa finds it to be a real good argument, but it has zero power with anyone who disagrees. so why even bring it up? stick to specific talking points (like you did)

I would like to see the same spirit towards secession of say Vermont or Alaska from USA as has been expressed towards Kashmir.

well, i favor breaking up the USA. so no tears from me. so your gambit doesn't work at all

Krishnan # 86,

I did mention and reiterate -that I cannot remember the 2 entities between whom this happened but it did happen .I meant the 62 war and not any other skirmishes that followed.Happy now?

I would like to see the same spirit towards secession of say Vermont or Alaska from USA as has been expressed towards Kashmir.

speaking of analogies, a better one is quebec and canada. they do it through plebiscites. how do you feel about letting the population of kashmir decide? ;-)

well, i favor breaking up the USA. so no tears from me. so your gambit doesn't work at all

If you believe in secession as a solution everywhere ,I have nothing more to say to you on this topic.

i didn't say that, you did. you took the specific argument re: kashmir and started making analogies all over the world and in other cases and brought up the slippery slope. you should take responsibility for the can of worms you opened. so don't try to flip this back on me.

To get back on topic, Rahul Gandhi in April 2007 claimed that his family was responsible for Taking India into the 21st century AND PARITION OF PAKISTAN. Whoever upthread spoke about the George Bush similarity may not be far from truth.

Krishnan,

Runa might be right about Sardar Patel quote, I am not sure though. Sardar Patel died in 1950, so it is possible he made statement during early arguments about MacMohan line. It is possible.

Yes, there was one war, 1962. Even in 1950s, after the Tibetan crisis, and Dalai Lama's asylum, the specter of war was real for long time.

However, the border problem with China is very old, to the origins of MacMohan Line. It goes back to numeruous outposts India would have (almost totally undefended or poorly defended), some of them even north of MacMohan Line. Chinese, after 1948 spent a whole decade or more building roads, garrisons, and all to strengthen and prepare them for their claims.

Speaking of families in India politics like Balasaheb Thakrey and family, Milind Deora and Muril Deora, Rajesh Pilot and his Son Sachin, Vishwanath Pratap Singh and his Son Akhilesh, Chaudhary Charan Singh and Ajit Singh, Rajmata Scindia, Vasundhara Raje, MadhavRao and his son Vikramaditya, the list is endless.

Last off topic post from me :

how do you feel about letting the population of kashmir decide? ;-)

What started the rant was I do not feel good about SM commenters in the USA - myself included - deciding that Kashmir should just be let go because its simply not worth the loss of life etc .

how do you feel about letting the population of kashmir decide? ;-)

Which population?

From 1946-47

From 1988

From 2007

Please take your pick? Because the demographics has changed massively.

What I dislike most about this is the mother-son thing going on-- if it were Priyanka, I'd tolerate that better. So maybe we'll hear from Varum/Vroom/Varun-- what's he about? Apart from BJP that is-- do Mutineers know?

Please take your pick? Because the demographics has changed massively.

i don't care, so i'll say 2007. the pandits are as likely to go back to kashmir as palestinian refugees are likely to get their lands back in israel proper (or native americans their traditional lands or eastern european germans their property that they lost after world war ii during expulsion).

I asked a simple question and nobody answered:

What happens to Askai Chin, and Karakoram?

What do we do with the Karakoram highway, which is one of the most militarized highway in the world, by no one else than Chinese.

Oh mighty Chinese !! Should I ........

What do we do with the Karakoram highway, which is one of the most militarized highway in the world, by no one else than Chinese.

the nature of the answer depends on who the "we" is doesn't it? e.g., ABD, DBD, pakistani (there are some around on SM right?), indian, etc.

I believe the "we" would be the "we" making suggestions of cessation irrespective of the nationalities and countries of birth.

I believe the "we" would be the "we" making suggestions of cessation irrespective of the nationalities and countries of birth.

let them have it. china can roll over india in a conventional war anyhow. and now that india has nukes that's the real deterrent, not conventional armies at strategic location (this assumes that china wouldn't be deterred by the economic bleeding that would result from the occupation of hundreds of millions).

Krishnan, you obviouslly do not properly understand the notion of strength. Patel wanted Kashmir for two reasons, one to simply make the territory of the Indian state larger, and just as important out of pure spite towards Pakistan. In the past 60 years, all that has been accomplished is the expenditure of men and capital (both political and economic) for an altogether inconsequential territory of a few million.

For an ostensibly democratic India, the legacy of Kashmir has one of military rule, fraudulent elections, and arbitrary arrests for political agitation.

In any case, some people put far too much emphasis on "legitimate" accession to the Indian union by Hari Singh. Prior to the entry of the Pathan irregulars from the NWFP and his flight to Delhi, Singh's policy was one of systemic persecution of the Muslim population, culminating in liquidations by his Sikh and Doghra soldiers. Singh aimed to create a no man's land between Kashmir and Pakistan by depopulating the border, driving thousands of refugees into Pakistan. The killings didn't end with the arrival of the Indian army either.

Do we have some commenter here on Chinese payroll?

kush, i did not realize you were reading from the playbook of the republican party. although to be fair, you should also use the phrase "cut and run".

i am glad that you are standing brave, firm and aggressive for kashmir.

on a blog.

My idea is not so much to let Kashmir go by itself, as to let all the Indian states become more autonomous - while also doing everything possible to make them see that it is in their own interest to keep the larger, but looser Union intact. As Razib and Kush have both noted from different perspectives, the unitary nation state is a straitjacket that fits India ill. It was a contraption and a compromise that was drawn up during 1947-50.

I suggested in a different thread that all of South Asia ought to move toward a (con)federation. Just as Scotland might separate from Great Britain, but still stay in the EU - similarly, if 'Kashmir' wants to leave 'India', they should be able to, but they would not secede from the federation of South Asia, they'll see it in their overwhelming interest to stay. EU becomes stronger just as Great Britain might become 'weaker'. And East and West Germany can combine (a Cold-War anachronism, that I suggest 'India' and 'Pakistan' in some ways also are), while Czech Republic and Slovakia separate from each other, but all within the EU.

That all nation-states are negotiated entities with respect to the prevailing world order (Razib): I agree completely. Whatever the local Hindu-Muslim etc dynamics might have been, Pakistan wouldn't have been born or survived as an independent state unless it also served both 'Great Game' and 'Cold War' strategic purposes, both vis-a-vis India and vis-a-vis (Soviet) Central Asia.

As the particular phase of 'globalization' we are now in gathers strength, the issue is whether a continuing antagonism between Pakistan and India, or indeed a multi-sovereign-state structure in South Asia still makes sense - even just for the states themselves, but also from an economic and geopolitical standpoint for the global system as a whole. The AQ Khan issue and the North Korean entanglement of Pakistan, for example, makes world system managers think - that this is ultimate result of the creation of two mutually antagonistic states in South Asia in 1947, so perhaps we should address the core issue, which is not just Kashmir, but the logic of Partition itself.

SAFTA is also an idea whose time has come, and political structures should evolve in a direction that makes the gains from SAFTA more easily achievable. The EU might represent a model of overlapping sovereignties and jurisdictions in a diverse continent that might be applicable to South Asia. The way Quebec is accomodated within Canada could also be a model for how 'Pakistan' is accomodated in a future South Asian Federation, including protection for language, culture, religio-social institutions, etc. Kashmir may leave 'India' but it will not exit this new South Asian Federation - geography, history and the gains from SAFTA will make sure of that. I suggest however, that once Kashmiris are actually given the choice to leave, they may choose to stay, even if by a small margin, just as Quebec is still part of Canada, although it has the right to leave.

and kush, to answer your question, the reality is that the 2007 population will need to decide. if you realistically believe that you can restore kashmir to some pre-1947 utopia, i would love to understand the reason for that bel