LEADER ARTICLE
You Are Not My Sonia | Setting Wrong a Lingering Right

<div class="section1"><div class="Normal">At long last, signs that a Congress-led coalition could take shape this election. From all accounts, the miracle owes itself to a single development: Sonia Gandhi''s off-the-record promise not to run for prime minister. <br /><br />Naturally, the liberal-secular camp can''t hide its relief. Theirs was a truly sticky predicament: They were obliged at once to defend her prime-ministerial claims and ensure she didn''t come in the way of Opposition unity.Now, if only she would rule herself out! Sonia would be there — to keep the Congress together, attract crowds etc. Yet, she wouldn''t be there — to spoil the party in the event the Opposition got the better of Atal''s chorus boys.<br /><br />Let''s face it. No one is shedding any tears for Sonia. Not the Left-liberal politicians, not the handful of ''progressive'' journos, and certainly not the growing tribe of global- Indians. For the first two, it was pure convenience: Sonia was wonderful in theory but an almighty complication in practice. Her mere presence scattered potential allies. For the global lot, the double-standard was a matter of conviction: Internationalisation, which was an imperative in terms of their own aspirations and lifestyle — they''d soak up everything, from fine Italian dining to annual European holidays to more American citizenships to more and more American corporate and political jobs — was unacceptable when extended to India''s prime minister. The Indian PM had to look, think, behave and be born Indian. Perhaps, justifiably so. After all, it is in the name of sovereignty that the world''s biggest champion of globalisation and its largest immigrant paradise, bars its highest office to its naturalised citizens. <br /><br />Yet, sovereignty is a double-edged weapon, as we are learning to our dismay. Indeed, the closing of the Indian mind against Sonia comes at a time India is at the receiving end of a virulent form of western protectionism. Not surprisingly, the outsourcing backlash has hit the overseas Indian, who has suddenly become a figure of suspicion, the reason Americans are losing their jobs. Though this is an absurd reading of the situation — outsourcing to India is a small percentage of total American outsourcing — try telling that to the American people. <br /><br />Illiberalism hurts — not the one who is practising it, but the one against whom it is being practised. Yet, what happens when the practitioner of illiberalism becomes its victim? The moral of the story: You can''t be xenophobic yourself and yell and scream that the world is xenophobic. If there are racist overtones to the western backlash against Indians, so there are racist overtones to India''s rejection of Sonia Gandhi. By all means, declare her incompetent for the top job. <br /><br />Yet, if Sonia''s down on her knees, begging and pleading that she won''t become PM, it''s because she was born Italian. By the way, can anyone tell Chandrababu Naidu that they don''t want him because he is Telugu? Or Sharad Pawar because he is a Maharashtrian? Or Atalji because he''s from uncultured North India? To even contemplate this is to commit sacrilege. It''d be considered parochial and offensive. Yet, we are permitted to be parochial and offensive with those who of their own volition have adopted this country. The virtues of a borderless, barrier-less world, where trade and people would both move freely, apparently cease when it comes to our own borders.<br /><br />To be sure, there''s the US bar against alien presidents. This is the single biggest defence of all those who oppose the videshi Sonia. But they could be barking up the wrong tree. Americans are not as uniformly and as irrevocably opposed to naturalised chief executives as we believe them to be. Post-9/11 xenophobia and loud protectionist clamour notwithstanding, there are also voices within the US protesting the bar against foreign-born presidents. In 2001, two editors of <span style="" font-style:="" italic="">National Review</span>, John Miller and Ramesh Ponnuru, made an impassioned case for lifting the ban. Last year, Senate Republican Orrin Hatch and House Democrat Vic Snyder moved amendments to remove the bar, and on September 6, 2003, the <span style="" font-style:="" italic="">New York Times</span> editorially urged ending the ban. <br /><br />The US has had many foreign-born governors. However, today, two of them — California''s Arnold Schwarzenegger and Michigan''s Jennifer Granholm — are openly being spoken of as potential presidential candidates. Then there''s our own Maharashtra-born Swati Dandekar, who last year became the first naturalised Indian-American to win a legislature seat. While she is far from reaching the White House, it is instructive to learn how she won. On the campaign, Swati''s opponent, Karen Balderston, accused her of growing up in casteist India and not knowing American values: "How is this person prepared to... understand and appreciate the constitutional rights guaranteed to the US by our founding fathers? I would rather have a native-born opponent should I not win this election (sounds familiar?)." <br /><br />The sovereignty bogey is just that — a bogey. German Henry Kissinger knew more state secrets than any president. As advisor for national security and secretary of state, he was a major influence in shaping Ameri-ca''s foreign policy between 1967 and 1976. He also had full grasp of the nuclear stuff. <br /><br />But the clincher on the foreign-born prez is in the NYT editorial: "At issue here is the fact that the Constitution creates, at least in regard to... the highest office, a level of second-class citizenships wholly inconsistent with American values. This is a lingering wrong that needs to be set right." <br /><br />Why do we want to create second-class citizens (or citizen)? And why do we want to set wrong a lingering right? </div> </div>