This is awesome news, but there's something a little screwy with the last sentence. Early morning typo?
"I don't doubt she'll disappoint."

you mean **I doubt she'll disappoint? Oo

Wow, this is so awesome!! More and more countries around the world are electing female presidents, and just look at how they are kicking ass!! The female presidents of Chile and Brazil have subsidized birth control for all of their female citizens and thumbed their noses at the Catholic Church while doing it. Maybe this new Indian president will do the same for the women in her country in order to combat the high birth rate and maternal mortality rate. This just shows how badly the world needs more female leaders!

Eek! Yes, early morning typo indeed. Thx for pointing that out.

Exciting. At least it's proving to people that women can lead -- and kick ass at it.

Exciting!

Hoping she helps with female feticide. This story was just published on MSNBC.

Ok, first of all, Vanessa, there is no typo. You wrote, "And I doubt she'll disappoint." That makes perfect sense and doesn't seem like a typo. I think the other readers misread the sentence.

But on the story? YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYY!!! I am always so happy to see a female leader elected anywhere, but to see it in India is just so wonderful. I hope she does many great things for the people of India, women and men and children.

And I, too, doubt that she'll disappoint :)

Monday, July 23, 2007

A Woman President in India: So What?

In light of the fact that right-wing and corporate-America "experts" such as Drudge are glorifying the so-called election of a woman president in India (and liberal feminists are falling for it!), a dissenting point of view is in order.

The fact is, contrary to what the Western media and pro-West variety of Indian media establishments are advertising, it's not important whether a woman is India's new president or not. Important is to understand where this person belongs in terms of class, politics and/or modernity. That's what matters the most.

Does the new president Pratibha Patil represent the 10 percent, upper economic and social class, or does she represent the vast impoverished and ignored population in India? Does Patil believe in ecumenical, egalitarian politics, or is she simply an icon of the old-relic, conservative, pseudo-Gandhi'ite Congress Party? Does she believe in total, unrestrained empowerment of Indian women (of all races, castes and religions), or does she espouse the outdated, Gandhian concept of Hindu womanhood?

Further, in today's context, does she have any statespersonship to challenge the Anglo-U.S. global aggression on the economic, war or environment fronts?

Unfortunately, what we've learnt so far does not give us much to rejoice. Moreover, the Indian constitution does not provide any real power to its president, and history tells us that Indian presidents have not done anything significant to challenge the dictates of the all-powerful prime ministers.

A not-so-old example is Indira Gandhi who enjoyed such overarching power for two decades. After the death of India's first, post-British prime minister Nehru and a brief stewardship of Lal Bahadur Shastri, Jawaharlal's daughter was basically put to the throne in a monarchical way (a practice replicated by the Nehru-Gandhi family subsequently, and the saga is still on, courtesy Indira's daughter-in-law Sonia Gandhi and her aspiring, blue-blood children). Initially, centrist Indira Gandhi was supported even by the subcontinent's left, hoping that her regime would bring about real empowerment of the poor, particularly the repressed lower castes and women.

However, Indira Gandhi did not bring about any major changes to the system, and turned out to be a power-hungry dictator in her later years. People like me who were deeply involved in Indian politics can remember how her promulgation of the 1975 Emergency, throwing of opposition leaders and workers in jail and imposed press censorship destroyed the Indian democracy as we knew it.

(Of course, she was later killed by allegedly-CIA-supported, extremist separatists, but that's another story.)

At the end of the day, there's hardly any particular cause for celebration just because a woman is the new Indian president. This is because the new person is definitely not a departure from the Indian status quo, either social, political or economic.

Millions of Indian women -- Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, tribals and "untouchables" -- poor, marginalized, hopeless women -- will keep suffering due to the "Chinese Wall" status quo. Pratibha Patil, with Sonia Gandhi's blessings, will likely promote and perpetuate that status quo.

(I sincerely hope I'm proven wrong.)

###

Monday, July 23, 2007

A Woman President in India: So What?

In light of the fact that right-wing and corporate-America "experts" such as Drudge are glorifying the so-called election of a woman president in India (and liberal feminists are falling for it!), a dissenting point of view is in order.

The fact is, contrary to what the Western media and pro-West variety of Indian media establishments are advertising, it's not important whether a woman is India's new president or not. Important is to understand where this person belongs in terms of class, politics and/or modernity. That's what matters the most.

Does the new president Pratibha Patil represent the 10 percent, upper economic and social class, or does she represent the vast impoverished and ignored population in India? Does Patil believe in ecumenical, egalitarian politics, or is she simply an icon of the old-relic, conservative, pseudo-Gandhi'ite Congress Party? Does she believe in total, unrestrained empowerment of Indian women (of all races, castes and religions), or does she espouse the outdated, Gandhian concept of Hindu womanhood?

Further, in today's context, does she have any statespersonship to challenge the Anglo-U.S. global aggression on the economic, war or environment fronts?

Unfortunately, what we've learnt so far does not give us much to rejoice. Moreover, the Indian constitution does not provide any real power to its president, and history tells us that Indian presidents have not done anything significant to challenge the dictates of the all-powerful prime ministers.

A not-so-old example is Indira Gandhi who enjoyed such overarching power for two decades. After the death of India's first, post-British prime minister Nehru and a brief stewardship of Lal Bahadur Shastri, Jawaharlal's daughter was basically put to the throne in a monarchical way (a practice replicated by the Nehru-Gandhi family subsequently, and the saga is still on, courtesy Indira's daughter-in-law Sonia Gandhi and her aspiring, blue-blood children). Initially, centrist Indira Gandhi was supported even by the subcontinent's left, hoping that her regime would bring about real empowerment of the poor, particularly the repressed lower castes and women.

However, Indira Gandhi did not bring about any major changes to the system, and turned out to be a power-hungry dictator in her later years. People like me who were deeply involved in Indian politics can remember how her promulgation of the 1975 Emergency, throwing of opposition leaders and workers in jail and imposed press censorship destroyed the Indian democracy as we knew it.

(Of course, she was later killed by allegedly-CIA-supported, extremist separatists, but that's another story.)

At the end of the day, there's hardly any particular cause for celebration just because a woman is the new Indian president. This is because the new person is definitely not a departure from the Indian status quo, either social, political or economic.

Millions of Indian women -- Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, tribals and "untouchables" -- poor, marginalized, hopeless women -- will keep suffering due to the "Chinese Wall" status quo. Pratibha Patil, with Sonia Gandhi's blessings, will likely promote and perpetuate that status quo.

(I sincerely hope I'm proven wrong.)

###

This is good news, but I hope this just isn't a symbolic gesture. I hope women in India gain more rights.

This is good news, but I hope this just isn't a symbolic gesture. I hope women in India gain more rights.

Am I the only one who really doesn't see this as a big deal? It was my understanding that the presidency in India, like many parliamentary systems, is mostly a ceremonial position. The real power rests with the prime minister, and of course, India had a female PM from the late 60's through the early 80's. Am I missing something?

Actually, most of us in India are incredibly disappointed with this election. This is not about whether she is a woman or a man (I am a feminist, by the way) but about the fact that she is clearly unsuitable.

Having risen from political obscurity, Patil's claims to fame include sycophancy to Indira Gandhi under whose regime we had the disastrous emergency and the notorious sterilization campaign. Not only that, she has a dubious record of fraudulent dealings. Apart from this, she is clearly lacking in intellect compared to her predecessor Abdul Kalam and can apparently "speak to spirits".

This is hardly the kind of representative we were hoping for at this crucial juncture in our country's growth.

While it may be a symbolic win for gender, it is not being considered as a positive move for the country by most of us. The president of a country, after all, should be more than a mere symbol.

Actually, most of us in India are incredibly disappointed with this election. This is not about whether she is a woman or a man (I am a feminist, by the way) but about the fact that she is clearly unsuitable.

Having risen from political obscurity, Patil's claims to fame include sycophancy to Indira Gandhi under whose regime we had the disastrous emergency and the notorious sterilization campaign. Not only that, she has a dubious record of fraudulent dealings. Apart from this, she is clearly lacking in intellect compared to her predecessor Abdul Kalam and can apparently "speak to spirits".

This is hardly the kind of representative we were hoping for at this crucial juncture in our country's growth.

While it may be a symbolic win for gender, it is not being considered as a positive move for the country by most of us. The president of a country, after all, should be more than a mere symbol.

Actually, most of us in India are incredibly disappointed with this election. This is not about whether she is a woman or a man (I am a feminist, by the way) but about the fact that she is clearly unsuitable.

Having risen from political obscurity, Patil's claims to fame include sycophancy to Indira Gandhi under whose regime we had the disastrous emergency and the notorious sterilization campaign. Not only that, she has a dubious record of fraudulent dealings. Apart from this, she is clearly lacking in intellect compared to her predecessor Abdul Kalam and can apparently "speak to spirits".

This is hardly the kind of representative we were hoping for at this crucial juncture in our country's growth.

While it may be a symbolic win for gender, it is not being considered as a positive move for the country by most of us. The president of a country, after all, should be more than a mere symbol.

I wish you guys would stop applauding this. Actually, many of us in India are incredibly disappointed with this election. And this includes feminists like me. This is not about whether she is a woman or a man but about the fact that she is clearly unsuitable.

Having risen from political obscurity, Patil's claims to fame include sycophancy to Indira Gandhi under whose regime we had the disastrous emergency and the notorious sterilization campaign. Not only that, she has a dubious record of fraudulent dealings. Apart from this, she is clearly lacking in intellect compared to her predecessor Abdul Kalam and can apparently "speak to spirits".

This is hardly the kind of representative we were hoping for at this crucial juncture in our country's growth.

While it may be a symbolic win for gender, it is not being considered as a positive move for the country by most of us. The president of a country, after all, should be more than a mere symbol.

So this is turning out to be a lot more comlex than my knee-jerk reaction has led me to believe. I hope more people with knowledge about India and its history would post comments on this. I thought it was a great thing that she was elected, but now I am starting to change my mind. I won't be so quick to rejoyce the next time, until I know all the facts. Thank you for posting!!!

"Am I the only one who really doesn't see this as a big deal? It was my understanding that the presidency in India, like many parliamentary systems, is mostly a ceremonial position. The real power rests with the prime minister, and of course, India had a female PM from the late 60's through the early 80's. Am I missing something?"

For that matter, what about the 2004 national elections?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/south_asia/2004/india_votes_2004/default.stm

Enough people voted for Congress Party members of parliament that Sonia Gandhi would have been Prime Minister (had she not delegated that job to Manmohan Singh).

Mina is right. The post of the president in India is mostly ceremonial, but the office becomes important when there is a challenge to the constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_India

I believe (most of my friends in India agree with me on this) that she will put loyalty to Sonia Gandhi and the Congress party above the constitution. She is also more socially conservative than the present President Dr. Kalam.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6294238.stm

I believe that Sonia Gandhi did not allow a second term for him because of his opposition to the "offices of profit" bill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_profit

I think this is a step backwards not just for women but also for India.