October 07, 2007

Appropriating brand 'Gandhi'


What qualifies him to be a general secretary of the Congress? Will he distinguish himself as a parliamentarian? He has not opened his mouth in three-and-a-half-years except once when he read a written speech, probably prepared by someone else. In his speeches made outside the Parliament, during the road shows he spoke glorifying his dynasty and its contributions to India. Many a times his words were source of embarrassment and the party's spokesperson had to clarity his remarks. Despite every thing, his nomination was drummed up as arrival and empowerment of youth in party and the country. Some went to the extent of symbolising his arrival as dawn of a new era.


One may ask what is the vision of Rahul or Sonia Gandhi, about future of the country. Mahatma Gandhi had great vision which inspired Jawaharlal and to some extent late Indira Gandhi. Rajeev Gandhi showed little vision or even any understanding towards the Mahatma or his philosophy. The fourth generation represented by Rahul is completely bereft of any Gandhian values and virtues. One should not be surprised at this. Those who have even elementary knowledge of history know that even the most powerful dynasties in any period and in any part of the world have exhibited this degradation and decline, once they go into third or fourth generation. In India Mauryas, Guptas, and Mughals are glaring example. Does one need to say any more?




Appropriating brand 'Gandhi'
Dina Nath Mishra
Daily Pioneer
October 7, 2007

Gandhi is a colossal brand and I will concede that this brand is popular too. During the lifetime of Mahatma Gandhi, the brand had started shaping. After his assassination, it turned into an immortal brand. It may not be very popular in the world but it is fairly well known. From this year, the UN has decided to celebrate October 2, as international non-violence day.


Armed with this brand name, Sonia Gandhi, addressed UN General Assembly to thank the world for taking decision to this effect. At the same time, a protest demonstration by Indians took place in front of UN Headquarters. They felt humiliated that a nation of 111 crore people is being represented by a lady of European origin and who has nothing remotely to do with the Mahatma.


Prior to this incident, Sonia Gandhi had appointed her son Rahul Gandhi, as a general secretary of the Congress. She thought it fit to take him along. It seems a very well designed plan to launch him internationally. This is a clear effort to appropriate the brand 'Gandhi', connecting the Mahatma's brand with that of her family. Till date she had the brand affixed with her name but 'Gandhi' suffix and its similarity with the real Gandhi is coincidental. Now with UN stamp on Gandhi, the legacy is being appropriated by her. Think of the Mahatma and Sonia Gandhi. Are they comparable in any way?


Recently a film Gandhi My Father by Feroze Abbas Khan was released. The film is about the Mahatma and his son. The storyline goes to reveal the troubled relationship between the Mahatma and his eldest son Hari Lal. The life of the son is plagued by one failure after another and ends pitifully in 1955. It has brought out greatness of Mahatma Gandhi. Hari Lal wanted to study law in England and become a barrister, like his father. Had Mahatma Gandhi wanted to favour his son to achieve his ambition, it would have been a very easy thing for him. In fact, a wealthy businessman of Gujarat had authorised Mahatma Gandhi to nominate one student each year for scholarship to study law in London but he refused to name his son for the scholarship for a couple or more years. Heart broken Hari Lal was frustrated. He thought that his father neither loved him nor cared for him. Nepotism was not Mahatma Gandhi's cup of tea. He loved children of the Ashram and also cared for them.


Coming to Sonia Gandhi, she nominated her son as general secretary of the Congress, relegating all the claimants who have spent their life in the organisation. After assuming power Rahul met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Immediately thereafter an announcement was made that National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme which at present was confined to 300 districts will now be extended to all districts in the country.


Very few people know that the Cabinet had already taken effect to this decision even before Rahul had become general secretary. This shows how mother and son appropriate credit of the Government's work. Rahul's nomination launched him on higher orbit. On Sonia's part it is more than nepotism. It is an extension of the dynasty. Gandhiji's value system can't be compared to Sonia Gandhi's, for she is totally bereft of Gandhian values. One can see the attempt to inherit the brand "Gandhi".


Coming to Rahul Gandhi. What qualifies him to be a general secretary of the Congress? Will he distinguish himself as a parliamentarian? He has not opened his mouth in three-and-a-half-years except once when he read a written speech, probably prepared by someone else. In his speeches made outside the Parliament, during the road shows he spoke glorifying his dynasty and its contributions to India. Many a times his words were source of embarrassment and the party's spokesperson had to clarity his remarks. Despite every thing, his nomination was drummed up as arrival and empowerment of youth in party and the country. Some went to the extent of symbolising his arrival as dawn of a new era.


One may ask what is the vision of Rahul or Sonia Gandhi, about future of the country. Mahatma Gandhi had great vision which inspired Jawaharlal and to some extent late Indira Gandhi. Rajeev Gandhi showed little vision or even any understanding towards the Mahatma or his philosophy. The fourth generation represented by Rahul is completely bereft of any Gandhian values and virtues. One should not be surprised at this. Those who have even elementary knowledge of history know that even the most powerful dynasties in any period and in any part of the world have exhibited this degradation and decline, once they go into third or fourth generation. In India Mauryas, Guptas, and Mughals are glaring example. Does one need to say any more?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

RAHUL GANDHI : What Dina Nath Mishra and Others missed

Dina Nath Mishra in his article "
Appropriating brand 'Gandhi'" says

QUOTE

What qualifies him [RAHUL GANDHI] to be a general secretary of the Congress? Will he distinguish himself as a parliamentarian? He has not opened his mouth in three-and-a-half-years except once when he read a written speech, probably prepared by someone else. In his speeches made outside the Parliament, during the road shows he spoke glorifying his dynasty and its contributions to India. Many a times his words were source of embarrassment and the party's spokesperson had to clarity his remarks. Despite every thing, his nomination was drummed up as arrival and empowerment of youth in party and the country. Some went to the extent of symbolising his arrival as dawn of a new era.

UNQUOTE


Will he distinguish himself as a parliamentarian?

OPEN RECORDS tells us :

QUESTIONS ASKED IN PARLIAMENT : 3

http://164.100.24.208/lsq14/quest.asp?qref=17226
http://164.100.24.208/lsq14/quest.asp?qref=24682
http://164.100.24.208/lsq14/quest.asp?qref=38520

DEBATES : Nill

Check Official Report of the Proceedings of the House ( Check yourself)

http://164.100.24.209/newls/mksearch_nls.asp