|
|
|
|
|
| HOME | NEWS | COMMENTARY | LIBERAL AGENDA | |||
|
March 7, 1999
ELECTIONS '98
|
'A local Gandhi is always better than an imported one!'
How Readers responded to Vir Sanghvi's last column
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 16:33:08 +0100
I do not agree with the views of the author. On one hand he criticises Congress rule. On the other, he is justifying Congress leader Sonia Gandhi. If he has even a little wisdom he should see that Maneka has made efforts to go to the people and get to know their problems. Sonia, whereas, is a back-door entry -- and that too entirely on the Gandhi legacy. If he wants to criticise, why has he not criticised this? It is undoubtedly clear that she is the head of a party that has more then 100 years of history; it has roots deeply embedded in India's freedom struggle. But does this party have any democratic norm? Is there no leader in the party who is capable of the supreme chair other than one from the Gandhi family? The author has criticised family planning. I am afraid that he is right about the Emergency aspects, but could not understand why he was criticising family planning. That is the only viable solution if you want to do away with India's woes. You have to make the two-child norm mandatory. Bhanu
Date:
Tue, 02 Mar 1999 17:33:59 +0530
For getting better answers to his questions, Vir Sanghvi better approach Mr Khushwant Singh, the family friend and guide of Mrs M. However, if you ask my opinion, a local Gandhi is always better than an imported one!
Date:
Wed, 03 Mar 1999 05:14:37 -0600
What's wrong with Vir? This is such a low personal attack on Maneka. 'That woman '. Wow! Vir, you have fallen, haven't you? If you have a personal problem with her, and it seems that you might have, the least you can do is couch your words in civility. Sumit
Date:
Wed, 03 Mar 1999 06:45:41 PST
I'm slowly becoming Vir's fan. If the BJP is banking on Maneka's charisma (if she has any) then they will definitely be losing heavily on their die-hard idealistic supporters. I do very vividly remember her doings during the late 70s when we were in college and were active against the draconian Emergency. I just wonder how opportunistic our respected political leaders can become. It's disgusting.
Mahesh Kalla
Date:
Wed, 3 Mar 1999 15:27:17 EST
Whatever the motives of Maneka and the mission of the BJP is, one thing is clear from Vir's desperate column: that he will never be able to fulfil his mission or satisfy his motives of making his owner, Madam Sonia, the PM of India by writing so ridiculously... Vishaal
Date:
Thu, 04 Mar 1999 06:55:44 PST
How much were you paid? Brenda
Date:
Tue, 02 Mar 1999 00:02:35 -0800
I like Vir Sanghvi's columns. He writes well, incisively and doesn't mince words. It's probably the only column worth reading on Rediff and basing an opinion on. But Maneka Gandhi is not a worthy subject. Hope to see you choose better topics, Vir (like you have before).
Pathikrit SenGupta
Date:
Tue, 2 Mar 1999 06:16:53 +0100
I think, he is a modern Narad muni and Shakuni rolled into one. I also think he is on the pay-roll of Sonia Gandhi!!
Date:
Tue, 02 Mar 1999 00:11:30 -0500
I think he is a rabid hate-monger. I have been reading his writings and find nothing other than a very rabid hate agenda. But I guess you guys must love him as newspapers (even on the Internet) enjoy a large audience by being controversial and extreme (though it is not mature journalism).
Date:
Tue, 02 Mar 1999 10:42:40 -0600
One more rose, for Madam Sonia.
Yudhvir Singh
Date:
Tue, 2 Mar 1999 10:56:41 +0800
Dear Vir Sanghvi, You could perhaps use a little polished language?
Date:
Mon, 1 Mar 1999 22:02:36 -0500
The press that was asked to bend started crawling in front of Sanjay Gandhi. The same spineless press is now opposing Maneka, taking the side of the 'on the run' fame Sonia. Just as Maneka has lost any credibility, the press also has lost its altogether. Had the RSS and the socialists not joined hands to fight Indira Gandhi, we would have suffered more in the Emergency. Many thanks to them for that historical fight. The English press left ordinary people to fend themselves and kept quiet. It is quite natural and convenient for the Press to criticise Maneka now after she revealed Sonia and Rajiv's plan to run away to Italy after the 1977 defeat. By only criticising Maneka and not analysing the 'Sonia on the run' scene, Vir Sanghvi demonstrates that he is on the Congress pay roll. Yes, we care if Sonia and Rajiv really sought refuge in the Italian embassy. Because, it will help us decide if Indians should trust her now with the nation's destiny. We don't care what Maneka's fate is. She is a spent force. But we care if Indians are giving control of the nation to a personality of questionable integrity. This is a main question. Please work more and investigate if this really happened and report to us. It's our right to get correct information. Please do that job first before casting motives to others.
Mukund Kute
Date:
Mon, 01 Mar 1999 19:38:38 -0500
Vir Sanghvi displays his anti-BJP (possibly anti-Hindu), pro-Congress and distinctly pro-Sonia (possibly pseudo-secular or pro-Christian) bias by his tirade against Maneka, while simultaneously ignoring and covering up the very significant revelation about the conduct of Rajiv and Sonia in 1977. At issue here is not the messenger, but the message. The BJP's mission is a totally irrelevant addendum to his outburst. A responsible and patriotic Indian, on hearing such a revelation, will certainly worry about its genuineness. The fact that it came from Maneka does not automatically make it suspect, irrespective of her motives and illustrated past. My concern is: What has Mr Sanghvi done so far to ascertain if Maneka did indeed tell the truth? If she did, what are its implications, if Sonia managed to capture the prime ministership one day? How can Mr Sanghvi ignore the serious misgivings this information can create in the minds of concerned and patriotic Indians? Or how the security and independence of the country could be compromised? Sonia's credentials, irrespective of this revelation, are not all above board. A person in Mr Sanghvi's position can ill-afford to distract attention from the real issue implicit in the message. Shouldn't that be the real concern of Mr Sanghvi, not the trash he has vomited in his commentary to discredit the messenger. How can he ignore the implications of the message, if true? Will Mr Sanghvi take his responsibilities more seriously?
Rajendra Aggarwala
Date:
Mon, 01 Mar 1999 13:54:03 -0600
I think the English press is sick. The journalists don't give a hoot to what happens to the common people of India. They are only interested in getting kudos from the West and furthering their career. Their idols in the US are not much better as the retinue of rich journalists keep recycling all the dirt about Bill Clinton. India have not had a true son of Hindustan as its prime minister for a long time. Vajpayee is trying to release India from slow growth and bureaucracy. Unfortunately, the English language press is trying to ease out Vajpayee because he and his party are supposedly secular. These effete snobs do not know the meaning of the word secularism. They think to be secular means bending over backwards for Muslims and Christians. Does India have any special things for Jews or Buddhists? No. The English language press considers singing Vande Mataram communal. Have these people looked at the lyrics of America the beautiful or the Battle Hymn of the Republic?
Santanu Ghose
|
| Tell us what you think of this column | |
|
HOME |
NEWS |
BUSINESS |
SPORTS |
MOVIES |
CHAT |
INFOTECH |
TRAVEL
SHOPPING HOME | BOOK SHOP | MUSIC SHOP | HOTEL RESERVATIONS PERSONAL HOMEPAGES | FREE EMAIL | FEEDBACK |
|