17th Nov 2008

Here's an excerpt from an article published in the Guardian, and I am so disappointed with it.

"Democracy in India is too immature to produce a President Obama. Although the country has had a Muslim nuclear scientist as president, a Sikh economist as prime minister and a Roman Catholic woman as leader of the biggest party, these are merely outcomes of patronage. All were picked to be leaders, and only Sonia Gandhi enjoyed a popular mandate to be prime minister, one she could not accept, as the Hindu nationalist party threatened to campaign against her on the basis of religion. It would be like white American politicians saying they could not co-operate with Obama because he was black.

Indians love the symbolism of Obama, and many compare their impressive Dalit politician Mayawati with him. In politics, symbols are important. A black man in the White House is powerful stuff, just as a Dalit woman as prime minister would be in India."

I wish the writer had chosen a neater and better premise for comparisons between Obama and Mayawati.

Obama is a Harvard Law School pass out. Mayawati may be does not even know what Harvard is. He is fully qualified to lead an influential country such as the US.

Only being Black, for a change(that too after 200 years of independence) , or being a dalit is no qualification for ushering in a "Change".