MAHATMA GANDHI'S VIEW ON CONVERSION

Gandhi was one of those Hindus who had studied the scriptures of all the important religions with open mind and without prejudice. During his prayer meetings, parts of the Bible were read out and at times Psalms were sung along with ‘bhajans’. The Sermon on the Mount “went straight to his heart” he used to say. During his lifetime Gandhi had developed friendship with several Christians. Some of them had become his followers like C.F. Andrews, Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur, Madeleine Slade (Mirabehn), and J.C. Kumarappa, to name just a few. The great French writer and philosopher Romain Rolland (who also wrote Gandhi’s biography) used to call Gandhi a ‘second Christ’. In fact Gandhi had shocked the Christian world by living like Jesus without being a Christian. Like Jesus he disowned all property as well as his relatives; became a celibate at the age of thirty seven, lived a simple life adorned by Truth and like Jesus he had gathered around him followers (apostles) who were prepared to do his bidding without demur. His life-style and his preaching added to his charisma. He had become a phenomenon, an enigma, a saint worshipped by millions of people in India. 1
Christian missionaries were greatly tempted to convert a man like Gandhi. They thought that if Gandhi was converted millions of his followers would automatically follow suit. Christian missionaries came from all parts of the world, to discuss with him matters religious but often with the sole aim of converting him to Christianity. They argued with him. He listened to them patiently, argued with them and sometimes even rebuked them for mixing up social work with proselytising. What they had brought to sell did not appeal to the Mahatma. He used to tell the missionaries that he refused to believe that Jesus was the only son of God and that the salvation of a person lay in accepting Jesus Christ as the Saviour (in other words by becoming a Christians). 1
Gandhi’s first exposure to a Christian missionary, while studying in school, was not a very happy event. It left, it seems, a lasting impression on his mind as childhood impressions often do. Gandhi has described this incident in his Autobiography (1929) in the following words: 1
"In those days Christian missionaries used to stand in a corner near the high school and hold forth, pouring abuse on Hindus and their gods. I could not endure this. I must have stood there to hear them once only, but that was enough to dissuade me from repeating the experiment. About the same time, I heard of a well-known Hindu having been converted to Christianity. It was the talk of the town that, when he was baptized, he had to eat beef and drink liquor, that he also had to change his clothes, and that thenceforth he began to go about in European costume including a hat. These things got on my nerves. Surely, thought I, a religion that compelled one to eat beef, drink liquor, and change one’s own clothes did not deserve the name. I also heard that the new convert had already begun abusing the religion of his ancestors, their customs and their country. All these things created in me a dislike for Christianity." 1
While in England as a student (1888-91) Gandhi met several Christians, made a few friends but most of them were more interested in vegetarian diet than religious matters. Gandhi had become a member of the Vegetarian Society and discussed with other members matters dietary. The real confrontation with Christian missionaries started in 1893 while Gandhi was in South Africa. (This confrontation continued till almost the last days of his life). Gandhi has described these first attempts in detail in his Autobiography thus: 1
The first to come in contact was one Mr. A. W. Baker. He, besides being an attorney, was a staunch lay preacher. 1
He (Mr. Baker) upholds the excellence of Christianity from various points of view, and contends that it is impossible to find eternal peace, unless one accepts Jesus as the only Son of God and the Saviour of mankind. 1
During the very first interview Mr. Baker ascertained his religious views. Mahatma said to him: “I am a Hindu by birth. And yet I do not know much of Hinduism, and I know less of other religions. In fact I do not know where I am, and what is and what should be my belief. I intend to make a careful study of my own religion and, as far as I can, of other religions as well.” 1
Mr. Baker was happy to hear that and offered to introduce me to his co-workers in the church, which he had built at his own expense. He also gave some religious books to Gandhi to read, including the Holy Bible, of course. Mr. Baker had invited Gandhi to a prayer meeting next day, which Gandhi attended. Apart from the general prayer, Gandhi records: 1
“A prayer was now added for my welfare: Lord, show the path to the new brother who has come amongst us. Give him, Lord, the peace that thou have given us. May the Lord Jesus who has saved us save him too. We ask all this in the name of Jesus.” 1
One of the groups was a young man Mr. Coates, a Quaker. He had given Gandhi quite a few books on Christianity and had hoped that he would come round and embrace Christianity. Gandhi continues in the Autobiography: 1
“He (Mr. Coates) was looking forward to delivering me from the abyss of ignorance. He wanted to convince me that, no matter whether there was some truth in other religions, salvation was impossible for me unless I accepted Christianity which represented the truth, and that my sins would not be washed away except by the intercession of Jesus, and that all good works were useless.” 1
Gandhi was introduced to several other practicing Christians, including a family belonging to Plymouth Brethren, a Christian sect. one of the Plymouth Brethren confronted Gandhi with an argument for which he was not prepared. He said: 1
“How can this ceaseless cycle of action bring you redemption? You can never have peace. You admit that we are all sinners. Now look at the perfection of our belief. Our attempts at improvement and atonement are futile. And yet redemption we must have. How can we bear the burden of sin? We can but throw it on Jesus. He is the only sinless Son of God. It is His word that those who believe in Him shall have everlasting life. Therein lies God’s infinite mercy. And as we believe in the atonement of Jesus, our own sins do not bind us. Sin we must. It is impossible to live in this world sinless. And therefore Jesus suffered and atoned for all the sins of mankind. Only he who accepts His great redemption can have eternal peace. Think what a life of restless is yours, and what a promise of peace we have.”
Gandhi’s reaction to this offer is typical of him and is oft quoted by his western biographers like Erik Erikson and Geoffrey Ash: 1
“The argument utterly failed to convince me. I humbly replied: If this be the Christianity acknowledged by all Christians, I cannot accept it. I do not seek redemption from the consequences of my sin. I seek to be redeemed from sin itself or rather from the very thought of sin. Until I have attained that end, I shall be content to be restless.” 1
Gandhi was troubled with what was written in the Bible itself after he started reading it. Gandhi narrates another experience: 1
“Mr. Baker was getting anxious about my future. He took me to the Wellington Convention. The Protestant Christian organizes such gatherings every few years for religious enlightenment or, in other words, self-purification. --- Mr. Baker had hoped that the atmosphere of religious exaltation at the Convention, and the enthusiasm and earnestness of the people attending it, would inevitably lead me to embrace Christianity. --- The Convention lasted for three days. I could understand and appreciate the devoutness of those who attended it. But I saw no reason for changing my belief - my religion. It was impossible for me to believe that I could go to heaven or attain salvation only by becoming a Christian. When I frankly said so to some of the good Christian friends, they were shocked. But there was no help for it.” 1
Gandhi continues: “My difficulties lay deeper. It was more than I could believe that Jesus was the only incarnate Son of God, and that only he who believed in him would have everlasting life. If God could have sons, all of us were His sons. If Jesus was like God or God himself, then all men were like God and could be God himself. My reason was not ready to believe literally that Jesus by his death and by his blood redeemed the sins of the world. Metaphorically there might be some truth in it. Again according to Christianity only human beings had souls, and not other living beings, for which death meant complete extinction; while I held a contrary belief. I could accept Jesus as a martyr, an embodiment of sacrifice, and a divine teacher, but not as the most perfect man ever born. His death on the cross was a great example to the world, but that there was anything like a mysterious or miraculous virtue in it my heart could not accept. The pious lives of Christians did not give me anything that the lives of men of other faiths had failed to give. I had seen in other lives just the same reformation that I had heard of among Christians. Philosophically there was nothing extraordinary in Christian principles. From the point of view of sacrifice, it seemed to me that the Hindus greatly surpassed the Christians. It was impossible for me to regard Christianity as a perfect religion or the greatest of all religions. 1
I shared this mental churning with my Christian friends whenever there was an opportunity, but their answers could not satisfy me.” 1
Gandhi was only twenty-four when these skirmishes with Christian missionaries occurred. This shows an amazing maturity of thought at this young age. 1
Let us take note of what Gandhi had thought about Christianity and Conversion: -
"I speak from experience, that many of the conversions are only so called. In some cases, the appeal has gone not to the heart but to the stomach. And in every case, a conversion leaves a sore behind it, which, I venture to think, is avoidable." 1
In answering a question from an American student of frank evaluation of the work of Christian missionaries in India. Gandhi said, "In my opinion Christian missionaries have done good to us indirectly. Their direct contribution is probably more harmful than otherwise. I am against the modern method of proselytising. Years’ experience of proselytising both in South Africa and India has convinced me that it has not raised the general tone of the converts who have imbibed the superficialities of European civilization, and have missed the teaching of Jesus. I must be understood to refer to the general tendency and to brilliant exceptions. The indirect contribution, on the other hand, of Christian missionary effort is great. It has forced us to put our own house in order. The great educational and curative institutions of Christian missions I also count, amongst indirect results, because they have been established, not for their own sakes, but as an aid to proselytising." (Vol. 29 p.326.Young India 17-12-1925) 1
Replying to question " if non-Christians in the Indian Dominion would have freedom to embrace Christianity" by the President of the Punjab Student Christian League, Gandhiji said: 1
"They would be guided in this connection by the rules and laws framed. Christ came into this world to preach and spread the gospel of love and peace, but what his followers have brought about is tyranny and misery. Christians who were taught the maxim ‘Love thy neighbour as thy self,’(1) are divided among themselves." (Hindustan Times, 3-8-1947, Vol. 88 p.471-72) 1

To see all articles of writer visit www.bharatsangh.com

Role of Congress Party

With awe and shame we watch Indian leaders attempt to lodge Sonia as the Prime Minister. It is even more astonishing to see the 119 year-old Congress party's inability to find a leader from among its Indian-born members, and its overwhelming dependence on the "dynasty". Every responsible Indian of all political affiliations should challenge Sonia's Indian citizenship and challenge her allegiance to India.
Sonia's Italian origins in the 1999 Parliamentary elections, the Congress Party said that it too would make Lal Krishna Advani's birth origins a major poll issue and campaign against him by projecting him as a "Pakistani". Said Senior Congress leader Janardhan Poojari: "We have also taken it as a big challenge. We will campaign against Advani in every nook and corner of the state. If they say Sonia Gandhi is an Italian, we will say Advani is a Pakistani and demand that he should resign from Deputy Prime Minister's post."
It is pertinent to note that Advani was born much before the partition, in an undivided India, ruled at that time by the British. He along with lakhs of Hindus consciously chose to be a part of Independent India. Among others who also chose to be a part of Independent India was present Prime Minister of India Mr Manmohan Singh of Congress party and also Mr I.K. Gujral, the former Indian Prime Minister, who incidentally had occupied the PM's chair then with the backing of the Congress. By comparing Advani's birth origins with Sonia's, the Congress Party is displaying its own moral and intellectual bankruptcy. While the Congress had undoubtedly played a major role during the freedom struggle to throw out the foreign British Powers, it is sad that their present crop of leaders want another foreigner, an Italian, to be the leader of our Nation.Sonia Gandhi, leader of the opposition Congress party in India, resigned in reaction to complaints from within her own party that she was a foreigner. Three prominent politicians sent her an open letter stating that she was unsuitable to become Prime Minister because as she is not Indian-born. Similar charges had been made by politicians from rival parties. The rebels called for the constitution to be changed to restrict the country's executive posts to Indian-born citizens. Sonia Gandhi eventually withdrew her resignation, leading commentators to suspect that she had used the affair to increase her control over the party. The three rebels were expelled and the party’s leadership were forced to publicly back her. The glass of Ex-president of Party's car was broken. These leaders were punished because they dared to say the truth. It was good that Mahatma Gandhi is not alive to see this drama otherwise what he would have done only god knows.

To see all articles of writer visit www.bharatsangh.com

EMOTIONAL BLACKMAIL BY SONIA GANDHI सोनिया का इमोसनल ब्लैकमेल

"The day I entered Indiraji's household I became an Indian, the rest is just technical" that is Sonia Gandhi's latest explanation for not having acquired Indian citizenship till fourteen years after her marriage to Rajeev Gandhi.
Her maudlin speech at the AICC session demonstrated, her vision of India does not even extend to Nehru; it begins with Indira Gandhi and is lifted in full Technicolor from B-grade Hindi movies: Main suhagin yahin bani. Maa yahin bani. Main vidhwa aapki aankhon ke saamne hui. Is desh ki sabse mahaan putri Indiraji ne apni saansa meri bahon mein tori. Mere khoon ki ek ek boond kahti hain ki yeh mera vatan hair, yeh mera vatan hai. (I became a bride here; I became a mother here; I became a widow before your very eyes. This country’s greatest daughter Indiraji took her last breath in my arms. Every single drop of my blood cries, this is my country. This is my country).
Addressing a rally during the general election of 1998, Sonia Gandhi had said, "I am an Indian till my last breath."
"After my husband's death, I suffered in silence as canards were spread. Now I won't keep quiet." 1
"When I first came to Delhi in 1968, my father had given me a return ticket. But Delhi was the place of my second birth and the ticket, like my past, was lost in the mists of time." 2
"A month before he was assassinated, my husband said to me if an attempt was made to touch Babri Masjid, he would stand in front of it and they would have to kill him first." 3
"UP has been the karmabhoomi of my husband. He has been snatched away from me but nobody can snatch away his dream of a resurgent Bharat." 4
"While five Congress PMs ruled the country for 45 years, other parties had to find seven in just five years and 10 months." 5
"Those associated with the Mahatma's assassins are misleading voters. Those responsible for pulling down the disputed structure at Ayodhya will not be tolerated." 4
A noble thought, indeed. But the mere expression of that thought does not erase uncomfortable facts, which must now necessarily be resurrected because she is no longer a private person beyond public scrutiny. The uncomfortable questions that arise from these facts need to be dealt with.
Sonia Gandhi felt the need to proclaim that she is an Indian till her last breath only after she entered the political arena and needed to establish her credentials with the unwashed, but fiercely patriotic, masses of India. What she did not tell them was that she had retained her Italian citizenship, not feeling the need to accept Indian citizenship, till 1983. Why she does not inform that she only became Indian citizen when a case was filed in court asking foreigner lady to vacate the house of Prime Minister? Now she feel that acquiring the post of Prime Minister is birth right of Gandhi-Nehru Dynasty. Unfortunately there are lot many people in this country who also subscribe to the view that post of PM should go to a person from Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. When a person come to know that she is a foreigner lady, she is blamed for lot many serious allegations, then they say let us try Priyanka. This is the most unfortunate part of our democracy. The leaders should be based not on his paternal or maternal family background but according to work he has done on the ground for the people.
A lady who was feeling ashamed to acquire Indian citizenship now proclaims that she is an Indian till her last breath. If a foreigner lady today making such claims and has been deceiving us, than only we are responsible for it. The system of this country is responsible which has not allowed every citizen to get education. If the people of India would have nationalistic view there would not have been these kind of problems. We find most of the person assemble to listen Sonia Gandhi has nothing to do with what she is saying. There main duty is to chant at a regular interval of one to two minutes with loud voice, "Sonia Gandhi Zindabad". Most of us try to show so much respect, which we have not even shown to our parents. There are the youth who never touch feet of their parents but if get a chance to touch the feet of Catholic Sonia Maino than find it the most fortunate thing of their life. Only this kind of mentality carrying us to the slavery. After 55 years of independent, we are still mentally slave. To an extent only we are responsible for it. We have not been able to recognise the power we have in a democracy. After 55 year of independence we are still looking for someone from Nehru-Gandhi Dynasty to come forward for our emancipation. Our this kind of mentality is allowing the politician to take benefit and rule over us like Maharaja and it will continue till we do not recognise our power.
Rajeev Gandhi married Sonia Maino in 1968. Under India's citizenship law (not framed by Hindu fundamentalist or communists but Congress secularists in the 1950s), she was entitled to seek Indian citizenship five years after her marriage, which is in 1973. But she chose not to register as an Indian citizen for the next 10 years.
That could not have been a casual oversight. Indeed, two incidents during these 10 years one of flying to Italy at the time of 1971 war and another of taking asylum at Italian Embassy at Chanakyapuri at New Delhi after 1977 loss by Congress clearly suggest that it was a considered decision not to repudiate her Italian citizenship.
Death of her husband has paved the way for her to become Prime Minister of this country. She wants to take benefit of his death. She wants to prove that people of India can choose a semiliterate lady like her Prime Minister. Just to emotionally blackmail the people she is saying that she is Indian till her last breath. Obviously the people of India are fond of B-grade Hindi movie. They like these kind of dialogue. That is why they are eager to vote for Sonia against her filmy dialogue.
It is also a fact that now she has been given licence first by Indian Constitution and secondly by Indian National Congress to read all kind of papers which Congress party is giving her to read as reader (not leader). Though some time she may read Hindutwa as Indutwa. But I don't find any mistake by her. It is mistake of English. In English 'H' use to be silence if it is coming before 'I'. But by Silencing 'H' of Hindutwa she is not only silencing the Hindutwa culture of India but also trying to silence Hindustan.
Now she is trying to explain that she lost her ticket for going back to Italy in the course of time. But what she did not forget was getting his extension for stay in India as an Italian citizen after every five year until she was thrust to acquire Indian citizenship in 1983. But she can say any thing to our illiterate masses to fool them and to convince them that she is real patriotic lady, even more than any one else.
And why there has been 7 Prime Ministers in 5 years and 10 months. It was only because Congress supported most of the government, which could not complete its full term.
Madam should be aware of the fact that people of UP have rejected Congress party entirely. A few seats, which they had been winning, have only become possible because people are not aware of History of Nehru Gandhi properly. The day all the facts are brought before them. It would be difficult for Congress party to win even a single seat at least from Uttar Pradesh.
Now to emotionally blackmail the Muslims of India she is saying that a month before Rajeev was assassinated, he said to Sonia that if an attempt was made to touch Babri Masjid, he would stand in front of it and they would have to kill him first. I thing enough has been said above about how Sonia is easy with falsehood. Even if we presume that he said this than also it is debatable. First of all she should know that it was her brave husband who started ‘Ramlala Poojan’. In fact this dialogue also sounds like any other dialogue of B-grade Hindi movies. Unfortunately most of Indian Population get charged by such dialogue in Hindi Movie. Mahatma Gandhi used similar dialogue with regard to partition of India. But what happen when India was partitioned. But one thing was possible for her to do; it was she would have jumped before Babri Masjid to save it. After all if she wants to prove herself real Indian then it is a very small thing. Indian women have sacrificed their life for their husband. Why does Rajeev choose to announce this important decision in his bedroom? Napoleon once said, "Woman is the occupation of the idle mind, and the relaxation of the warrior." The fact of the matter is that such announcements are not made in bedroom. Are we not aware about braveness shown by Rajeev Gandhi? Does we not know that at the time of 1971 war he ran to Italy to avoid any eventuality at the time of war? Are we not aware that he along with his Italian wife took refuge in Italian Embassy in 1977 and hided himself like rat? We only know one example Sonia can give in support of braveness of Rajeev Gandhi, where he has at least tried to prove that he was brave. After death of his younger brother he asked Security Officer NK Singh to through widow of his younger brother (Mrs Maneka Gandhi) out of PM house. Though Security Officer refused to obey it and demanded the order in writing, which this brave Rajeev refused to give. Did Sonia wants to claim that this was the brave work? Rajeev has done. If she? then I am sorry. We the people of India do not subscribe to such opinions. Then how does Rajeev said that he would come before Babri Mosque. There may be either of two possibility, first he not at all used any such dialogue, it is being made by Sonia in normal course of her habit of lying, and Secondly Rajeev might have said so to create an impression over his wife. Because most of the brave people like Rajeev use to show their bravery only inside the bedroom. In fact Sonia should clarify to the people, either of these two which one is correct.
There are some more Hindi movies have got released in the recent past. Better Author of her speech should write few new dialogues and give it to her to read it. Unfortunately we the people of India if see a tourist English lady in our village we all surround her to see what she is. Mrs Gandhi I think is unaware of this fact. When we get the news that foreigner wife of Mr Rajeev is coming to our city or village, we do reach there to see how she looks? And what she is saying? After all when she makes a speech in Hindi it sounds like some new machine has been discovered, which can read Hindi and it is being tested before the people. People of India do appreciate such efforts of scientists. And some time they do vote for such inventions, specifically if someone from Nehru Gandhi dynasty discovers that machine.

To see all articles of writer visit www.bharatsangh.com

CAN AN INDIAN WOMAN MARRIGES WITH ITALIAN MAN BECOME PRIME MINISTER OF ITLY

Rai Singh had served as Indian Diplomat in Rome. He has recalled and written an article; in the mid 1950s famous Italian film director Roberto Rossellini, during his visit to India, fell in love with Bengali film actress Sonali, who eventually eloped with him to Rome. In Italy, Sonali married Rossellini and as his legal wife, she acquired the Italian citizenship after duly renouncing her Indian citizenship. However, years later, in the late 1960s, when she wanted to stand for an elective office at the municipal level, she was told she was not entitled to do so under the Italian law. Sonali approached the Indian Embassy in Rome. After informal and discreet inquiries, he learnt that there was no reciprocal protocol, treaty or law as such between India and Italy. Hence no help could be rendered to Sonali despite her being an Italian citizen of Indian origin.
And now when an Italian lady has came to India - we find, Congress party cannot breath without her. When a lady of our country who acquired Italian citizenship was not allowed to contest the municipal election in Italy how can we the people of India can allow an Italian lady to become Prime Minister of India?
As per Italian laws, Sonia Gandhi, (formerly) an Italian citizen, upon obtaining the naturalized citizenship of a foreign country such as India continues to retain their previous Italian citizenship. Italy does not require her to surrender the Italian passports. Thus, although Sonia may have acquired Indian citizenship, she automatically retains her original Italian citizenship. Even if Sonia has surrendered her passport to the Indian authorities, Italy can reissue her a new Italian passport if she produces a notarised photocopy of her old passport or by considering the surrendered passport as a lost one. Sonia is a dual-citizen of Italy and India and it is illegal for her to become India's PM.
As per Italian laws, Sonia can re-instate her Italian citizenship by following simple procedures stated above and in the Italian embassy website http://www.italconsulnyc.org/citizens.htm.
There is no public evidence to demonstrate that she has renounced her Italian citizenship; therefore, it must be assumed that she enjoys dual citizenship under Italian law (Indian law does not permit it) and that she continues to have access to an Italian passport. It may sound frivolous, but she is as much eligible to become the prime minister of Italy, as she is to become the prime minister of India. The most potent weapon therefore to dislodge the Maino clan including Rahul and Priyanka by exposing their Italian citizenship. Rahul and Priyanka were born Italian citizens because Sonia was Italian when she gave birth to them [Italian law based on jure sanguinis]. Hence, they continue be Italians since they never renounced it. Rahul may acquire Venezuela citizenship since Rahul's girl friend Veronica is a Venezuelan. That means one more foreign bahu for us tolerant Indians. The Maino-Gandhis are certainly getting globalise.

To see all articles of writer visit www.bharatsangh.com

CITIZENSHIP LAW OF OTHER COUNTRIES

The fact of the situation is that in no democratic country foreign-born registered citizen can be President or Prime Minister.
The American Constitution stipulates that only natural born citizens and those who have been resident in America for 14 years prior to his or her nomination are eligible to the office of President. Henry A. Kissinger, a naturalised US citizen born in Germany, was not eligible to succeed to the office of the President.
The Singapore Constitution says that a person who is not a citizen of Singapore born in Malaya shall not be elected President.
The law in Finland is that the President of the Republic must be from among the natural born citizens of Finland.
These are just three of the innumerable examples available the world over to show how constitutions bar naturalised citizens from high public offices.
In Australia, the only Senator from the far-right One Nation party was thrown out of parliament for having dual citizenship. Heather Hill acquired Australian citizenship but did not complete the procedure of relinquishing her British citizenship. (Here how Sonia relinquished her Italian citizenship is not known) Under Australia's constitution, dual nationals cannot sit in the legislature. The High Court ruled that the UK was a 'foreign power' as understood by the constitution. 4
Hill only took up Australian citizenship a few months before the election, but appears to have been confused about what was involved in renouncing her former citizenship. She had lived in Australia since childhood. One Nation, which opposes Asian immigration to Australia, retained the seat in the Senate and appointed a replacement. 4
Merve Safa Kavakci was stripped of her Turkish citizenship less than a month after her election to parliament and faces expulsion from the legislature. The Cabinet ruled that she had taken out US citizenship without permission. Under the law, Turkish citizens who take out a second citizenship are required to inform the authorities. She acquired US citizenship through her Jordanian-born American ex-husband, a month before the parliamentary elections in April. Whether the loss of citizenship will result in Kavacki losing her seat in parliament is to be decided by the Supreme Election Board. US immigration officials said that they would investigate Kavakci if she takes an oath of allegiance to Turkey. Such an oath would violate the terms of her US citizenship. 4
Zambia's High Court finally ruled that former President Kenneth Kaunda was stateless. It ruled that he was not a Zambian citizen. 4
Political parties who are talking of constitutional amendment to bar foreign-born citizens from acquiring posts will do well to use the existing Constitutional provisions in the best interests of the country. We can learn in this regard from German basic law.
Nilfur Shayegan, born and brought up in Germany has failed to get a German citizenship.
According to the German Basic Law - the nation's constitution - foreigners must spend at least eight years in the country to be eligible to vote, prove their command of the German language and "acceptance and knowledge" of the constitution to qualify as a citizen. 2
But even after meeting these standards, a large proportion of foreigners are still denied from becoming Germans. 2
Nilfur Shayegan, 34 was born and brought up in Frankfurt after her parents left Iran in the fifties. She is one of the many 'Germans' who cannot vote on Sunday. She first applied for citizenship when she was 18. She was denied a German passport two more times and gave up trying." (Indrajit Hazra, Berlin, September 20, published in Hindustan Times, Bhopal, 21 September 2002) 2
As far as having outsiders as Prime Ministers - what happened in Fiji - neither BBC nor CNN objected when the Indian born Hindu - Mahendra Chaudhary was thrown off the post by George Spait. Now some law has been passed there that only native tribes will be allowed to the post. Perhaps because they are all Christian and Indians are mostly non-Christians.
For a moment, let us assume that instead of Rajeev Gandhi, Sonia Maino had married an American. She could not have aspired for, forget her staking claim to, the American presidency. Article II, Section 1(5) of the American constitution would have debarred her from that office. It says, 'No person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the USA at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President…' 5
No such provision exists in the Constitution of India -- not because it was framed by "secular nationalists" but because no member of the Constituent Assembly could have ever imagined that 50 years after Independence, a foreigner would be in the race for the prime minister's job. If they had, they would have surely incorporated necessary safeguards. 5
The constitution of the USA demands that an applicant for American citizenship must be proficient in English, loyal to the USA and have basic knowledge of the constitution, the country's history and system of government. 5If the Constitution of India had similar guidelines, the indigenous people of India would have been spared the ignominy of being ruled by a person of foreign origin. For, Sonia Gandhi is proficient in no Indian language, including English; her loyalty to India is all of 15 years old; her knowledge of the Constitution of India is non-existent; she would fail the most elementary history test; and, beyond the fact that she wants to be the prime minister of India, it is doubtful whether she has an inkling about the Government of India.

To see all articles of writer visit www.bharatsangh.com

INDIAN LAW ON CITIZENSHIP

Unfortunately, the debate in Indian political circles has been confined to a narrow topic. The issue of holding of posts in Government by foreign-born persons is indeed a small part of the overall subject of grant of citizenship to foreigners. Politicians like Sharad Pawar, PA Sangma, Jayalalitaa, have raised the narrow issue with an eye on Sonia Gandhi. But in the process they have missed the larger problem. 2
Provisions regarding citizenship are contained in Part II (articles 5 to 11) of the Constitution of India. Article 5 lays down the conditions for citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution. Articles 6 and 7 deal with migrants from and to Pakistan. Article 8 is regarding certain persons of Indian origin residing outside India. Article 9 is about persons voluntarily acquiring citizenship of any foreign state. Article 10 says, "Every person who is or is deemed to be a citizen of India under any of the foregoing provisions of this part shall, subject to the provisions of any law that may be made by Parliament, continue to be such citizen". Article 10 gives the power to the Parliament to make any law for grant or termination or regulation of citizenship whether acquired through provisions of the Constitution or otherwise. 2
Article 11 clarifies it further by saying, "Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Part shall derogate from the power of Parliament to make any provision with respect to the acquisition and termination of citizenship and all matters relating to citizenship." Parliament has exercised the power under article 11 by enacting Citizenship Act, 1955. 2
In 1955, when the Act was passed, it would have been difficult to imagine that the country would face a problem of immigrants. British had just left the country and India was enjoying its newfound freedom. Surprisingly, no one even considered the possibility that immigrants could repeat history and become rulers just as British had become two centuries ago. Taking precautions against such a danger was never even contemplated. Not surprisingly, Citizenship Act, 1955 demonstrates a casual attitude with emphasis on procedure and formalities. 2
Five decades later, India faces severe problems from immigrants. Terrorism in Jammu-Kashmir and other parts of the country is caused by immigrants, or if you prefer infiltrators. Demographic profile has undergone a significant change in many districts of West Bengal and North Eastern states. Agitations against immigrants in North Eastern states are now almost three decades old. The number of Bangladeshis staying in large cities, like Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata, runs into millions. Pakistan has been able to use a large number of its citizens illegally staying in India for intelligence operations and for subversive activities. 2
It will not be an exaggeration to say that foreigners are posing a serious threat to internal security as well as to the basic constitutional structure of the country. An Italian born woman becoming Prime Minister is just a tip of the proverbial iceberg or pyramid. One cannot say that the tip is insignificant. But, it is necessary to go to the root of the problem instead of merely aiming for some cosmetic changes. 2
Discussion of the problem in media has concentrated on whether foreign-born citizens should enjoy the same rights as natural-born ones. Birth is a biological act. Place of performance of this act has hardly any influence on a person's psyche. For the sake of legal convenience, some importance has been ascribed to place of birth in laws relating to citizenship. But that can be no justification for treating it as the only important factor. 2
International law has a concept of domicile, which is not solely based on the place of birth. Domicile is based on the intentions and mind of the person concerned. Sankaran Horindan v. Lakshmi Bharti (1964, Ker. 244) illustrates the concept of domicile. One Krishnan, domiciled in India (Kerala) went to England for higher education in 1925. After some time his parents declined to give him any further financial support. With the help of an English friend, Miss Hopeworth, he completed his studies in 1939 and set up his private practice in medicine in Sheffield. He earned a fortune. He purchased a mansion in Sheffield. He also served in British Health Service. Krishnan lived in England for 30 years till his death. During this period, he did not come to India even once. But in letters that Krishnan wrote to his friends and relatives in India, he always expressed his intention of returning to India. Based on this fact, Kerala High Court came to the conclusion that Krishnan was domiciled in India. 2
It is an accepted principle of law that one must prove one's domicile in the host country before one becomes eligible for acquiring citizenship of that country. Simultaneously, one must also prove one's renunciation of domicile of the country of origin. Most countries prescribe tests and qualifications to ensure that the person is truly domiciled in the host country. Often, countries exercise such high levels of caution in this respect that there are charges of racism or of having a fortress-mentality. 2
India, on the other hand, goes to the other extreme. There is no attempt to determine the level of naturalization of a foreigner in the country. India has one of the simplest systems for grant of citizenship. There are no qualifications (relating to psyche or intentions) prescribed and almost everyone who applies is eligible. The applicant need not have even a rudimentary knowledge of Indian Constitution and laws. 2
There are two main routes available for acquisition of Indian citizenship: (a) under section 5, by registration and (b) under section 8, by naturalization. Naturalization route requires a stay of nine years and is available to citizens of some countries only. For all others the route is by way of an application in a prescribed form to the Collector of the district. The form does not make an attempt to judge the intentions of the applicant in acquiring the status of citizen. 2
The conditions for naturalization under Schedule 3 prescribe, "that he has an adequate knowledge of a language specified in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution." No such condition is specified for citizenship by registration. There is no requirement of having some knowledge of the traditions and culture of India. The Act (as well as the rules made there under) does not even make it mandatory for the authorities to verify the antecedents of the applicant in the country of origin. Surprisingly, the applicant is not even required to declare his or her intention to settle and reside in the country permanently. 2
Sonia Gandhi, when she applied for Indian citizenship, did not have a rudimentary knowledge of any Indian language. No comments can be made about her knowledge of Indian culture, traditions or even constitution. The country till today does not know if Sonia has made up her mind to be a part of India permanently. In other words, her domicile may still be in Italy. She may well be holding property in Italy and may also be having her loyalty towards Italy. The irony is that such a person can be granted citizenship under Indian law. 2
There is nothing under Citizenship Act that prevents a person with wrong intentions to enter into a marriage of convenience in India and apply for citizenship. The danger that this poses is a bit too obvious and is surely not far-fetched in a country that has seen more than ten million immigrants enter in the last two decades. 2
It is high time that a comprehensive review of The Citizenship Act is carried out. The Act was passed in 1955 and was amended in 1986 and 1992. The Parliament can modify it again and make it necessary for an applicant to prove his / her domicile in India. The modified law can also provide for review of all cases of persons to whom citizenship might have been granted in the past. Citizenship of anyone found ineligible may well be terminated. There need be no doubt about the power of Parliament to make law for termination of citizenship. Article 11 of Constitution gives this right to Parliament in unequivocal terms. 2
Article 84 of the Constitution mandates that a person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in Parliament unless he fulfils the conditions prescribed therein, one of them being that he must be a citizen of India.
Part II of the Constitution containing Articles 5 to 11 pertain to citizenship of India.
Article 5 declares that at the commencement of the Constitution, every person who has his domicile in the territory of India and who was born in India, or either of whose parents was born in India or who has ordinarily been resident in India for not less than five years immediately preceding such commencement shall be a citizen of India.
Article 6 conferred the right of citizenship to certain persons who had migrated to India from Pakistan.
Whereas Article 7 takes away the right of citizenship of certain migrants to Pakistan.
Article 8 confers the right of citizenship to certain persons of Indian origin residing out of India.
Article 9 declares that persons voluntarily acquiring citizenship of a foreign state cannot be Indian citizens.
Article 10 provides for continuance of the rights of citizenship.
Whereas Article 11 confers power on Parliament to regulate the right of citizenship by law.
It will be noticed that the Constitution does not expressly recognise acquisition of citizenship by naturalisation. Rather, Entry 17 List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, on which Parliament has exclusive powers to make laws, relates to "Citizenship, Naturalisation and Aliens" thereby distinguishing between "citizenship" and "naturalisation". The Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963 did not alter this concept of citizenship but merely added the prescribed oath to be taken by a Member of Parliament.
The constitutional omission of "naturalisation" as a means to acquiring citizenship of India assumes further significance in the light of the constitutional history on the issue. It will be recalled that prior to the enactment of the British Nationality Act, 1948 statutes maintained the distinction between natural-born British subjects and British subjects by naturalisation.
The British Nationality Act, 1948 which was enacted after a general consensus was reached within the Commonwealth countries, including India, and which repealed all previous United Kingdom legislation on the subject, prescribed therein the method of giving effect to the principle that each of the self-governing countries of the Commonwealth should, by its own legislation, determine who are its citizens and such citizens should be declared British subjects.
Accordingly, the 1948 Act abolished, by its Sections 31 and 34(3), the distinction between "citizenship" and "nationality" and thus, at the time of commencement of the Constitution, all subjects of the British Commonwealth possessed a common British nationality irrespective of whether they were naturalised citizens or natural-born citizens.
The framers of our Constitution were alive to the provisions of the British Nationality Act, 1948 providing for different categories of citizenship - namely, by birth, descent, registration and naturalisation. Yet our Constitution, while expressly recognising acquisition of citizenship by birth, descent and domicile does not provide for citizenship by "naturalisation".
There is yet another aspect to the matter. Under Article 102(d) of the Constitution, a person shall be disqualified from being chosen or being a member of either House, if he is not a citizen of India, or has voluntarily acquire-ed citizenship of a foreign state or is under any acknowledgment of allegiance or alliance to a foreign state.
Under the Italian Criminal Code, the status of a natural-born citizen in Italy is indelible and the birth of Sonia Gandhi in Italy by itself is acknowledgment of her continued allegiance to that country notwithstanding her stated renunciation of Italian citizenship. Such acknowledgment would be a disqualification under our Constitution for the membership of Sonia Gandhi to Parliament.
It therefore becomes evident that the concept of citizenship embodied in our Constitution does not include acquisition of citizenship by naturalisation, particularly when it comes to membership of Parliament. While it is true that Section 6 of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 recognises "naturalisation" as a mode of acquiring citizenship, there is nothing in the said Act to indicate that such naturalised citizen can hold public office under the Constitution.
In fact, Section 10 of the said Act empowers the central government to take away the citizenship of certain citizens specified therein, which include naturalised citizens but excludes citizens by birth, descent and so on. Hence, the said Act maintains a distinction between a naturalised citizen and other citizens.
Even otherwise, a statute cannot obviously enlarge the scope of the aforesaid constitutional concept of citizenship or be used to circumvent the provisions of Articles 84 and 102 of the Constitution.
After all there was no provision in the Constitution, which would have allowed a person like Sonia Gandhi to become Citizen of this country. Provisions mentioned in Article 102 and 84 were made in view of keeping the provision of constitution of that time. Thus the claim that Sonia Gandhi is a naturalised citizen, and therefore disqualified from holding a constitutional post in India is absolutely correct.
It is Sonia Gandhi's latest gender gem: ‘‘the day I became the daughter-in-law of Indira Gandhi's house, I became an Indian. The rest is all technical.'' By that logic, one Louis de Raedt can be considered to have had even better credentials to be regarded as an Indian. 3
Monsieur Raedt, held a Belgian passport but, till his day of reckoning in 1987, he had been continuously in India since 1937! By an order of the Government of India dated 8th July 1987, his request for further stay in India was rejected and he was ordered to leave the country. On an appeal against this order, our Supreme Court ruled that Raedt had not become a citizen of India and therefore had no right "to reside and settle in India". 3
''He must prove,'' said the court, ''that he had formed the intention of making his permanent home in the country of residence and of continuing to reside there permanently. Residence, alone, unaccompanied by the state of mind, is insufficient.'' Incidentally, the ''secularists,'' the Vatican and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad alike would be interested to learn that Louis de Raedt was engaged in Christian missionary work. 3
Sonia Gandhi was given ''acquired'' citizenship under the Indian Citizenship Act 1955. She was not given citizenship under Article 5 of the Constitution that relates to those who were born in India or who have parents either of whom was born in India or who were ordinarily resident in India for at least five years immediately preceding the commencement of the Indian Constitution.
Under the Indian Citizenship Act, there are three categories of Indian citizens -- citizens by birth, citizens by registration and citizens by naturalisation. I am an Indian citizen, so is Sonia Gandhi. But I am an Indian citizen by birth, which means nobody can deprive me of my citizenship. On the other hand, Sonia Gandhi is a citizen by registration, which means that under Indian laws, her citizenship, like that of those who are citizens by naturalisation, can be taken away and she can be deported.
Sonia Gandhi might well claim that she is an Indian till her last breath, but that does not mitigate the conditions and restrictions governing her Indian citizenship. Her citizenship by registration can be taken away under Section 10 of the Citizenship Act if the Government of India is satisfied that (a) the registration was obtained by means of fraud or concealment of material facts; (b) the registered citizen is disloyal or disaffected towards the Constitution of India; and, (c) the registered citizen raided or communicated with an enemy during war.
Now, the point about her citizenship and whether or not that entitles her to the prime minister of India's office, if, seen from a narrow, legal perspective, there is nothing that prevents Sonia Gandhi from assuming charge as prime minister of India. The Constitution of India, unlike the constitutions of many Western and Asian countries, puts no such bar on her. Unlike the USA, Finland, Germany, Thailand or Singapore, India does not insist that the aspirant for the job should be a natural born citizen.

To see all articles of writer visit www.bharatsangh.com

CAN A I.P.S OR I.F.S. MARRY WITH FOREIGNER

But there are some sectors in which the government goes beyond this fundamental check and virtually insists that the employee's spouse also be a citizen of India by birth. Examples, which easily come to mind, are the armed forces and the Indian foreign service (IFS). 1
Section 33 of the Army Order says that army personnel desirous of marrying foreign nationals, except the nationals of Bhutan, are required to obtain prior government sanction for such marriages. This order, however, exempts Gorkhas, whether of Nepalese origin or of Indian domicile, who desire to marry Nepalese or Indian subjects. 1
An officer intending to marry a foreign national has to fill out an elaborate application and send it to army headquarters four months prior to the date of marriage. Alongside this application, the office has to also send an application for release from the army "for personal reasons", a written application from the officer's spouse-to-be that he or she will renounce his or her original nationality and accept Indian citizenship as soon as the Indian Citizenship Act permits him or her to do so. 1
The army also insists on an undertaking from the officer that his/her application for release from the service may be automatically processed if the foreign spouse "refuses to acquire Indian citizenship or wilfully delays acquisition of Indian citizenship". 1
Further, the officer's application must be accompanied with an application by the spouse-to-be for Indian citizenship and complete details of the latter's background, including occupation in the last five years, degrees and diplomas obtained and proficiency in languages. 1
So, what happens after all this rigmarole? Senior officers in the armed forces do not recall any instance of a colleague being permitted by the government to marry a foreign national. In fact, the army is so fastidious that recently a lady officer in the Army Medical Corps, who was betrothed to an Indian green cardholder in the United States, had to quit the service before marriage because her fiance declined to give an undertaking that he would retain his Indian citizenship. 1
To order also says that the services of army personnel, who marry foreign nationals without permission, will be terminated. Air force and navy personnel have to go through a similar exercise, but the end result is usually the same - no permission. 1
The situation in the Indian foreign service is slightly better, but IFS officials too have to go through these hassles, if they wish to marry a foreign national. Till a decade ago, no member of the IFS was permitted to marry a foreign national. The government usually asked such officials to put in their papers. IFS officers says that in recent years the government has been much more liberal in dealing with such issues, but the rules continue to be rigid. Clause 8(1) of the Indian Foreign Service (conduct and discipline) Rules, 1986 says no member of the service shall marry any person other than an Indian citizen "without the prior permission in writing of the government". 1
Officers who intend to marry foreign nationals have made a written application to the foreign secretary and give the government one year to reply. Clause 8(3) says, "If a member of the service contracts marriage with a person other than an Indian citizen without obtaining prior written permission, he shall be liable to be removed from the service." 1
The rules further state that the government reserves the right to refuse permission if it feels to marriage will hinder proper performance of the duties of the member of the service. In case permission is accorded, "the government may stipulate such conditions as it may deem appropriate". 1
Therefore, what emerges from all this is that you cannot enter the Indian armed forces unless you establish your Indian citizenship and you will be asked to put in your papers if you acquire a foreign spouse. Italian-born Sonia Gandhi can be Prime Minister, order around the armed forces, let herself in on all state secrets and even determine India's strategic defence doctrine. And while she zealously pursues this ambition, Congress spokespersons say that it is graceless and uncivil to ask her the most rudiment questions about her Indian citizenship. 1
It is this inequity between Indian-Indians and Italian-Indians that the former find abhorrent. 1
Article 84 of the Constitution says that a person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in Parliament unless he or she is a citizen of India.
Article 102 provides that a person shall be disqualified from being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House if he or she is not a citizen of India or has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign state, or is under any acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a foreign state. That a returned candidate was 'not qualified' or 'was disqualified' to be chosen on the date of his election, is specifically a ground for declaring his/her election void under Section 100(1)(a) of RPA, 1951.
Section 16 of RPA, 1950 provides that a person shall be disqualified for registration in an electoral roll if he or she is not a citizen of India.
Sonia Gandhi applied for Indian citizenship by registration, under Section 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act, on April 7, 1983 by virtue of her marriage to Rajeev Gandhi in 1968. She voluntarily renounced her Italian citizenship by surrendering her Italian passport to the Italian Embassy in New Delhi on April 27, 1983. This, says Janata Party president, Dr. Subramanian Swamy (who has also been raising questions with regard to Sonia Gandhi's citizenship), had been confirmed by the then Italian Ambassador to India on April 29.
The Ambassador had apparently stated that Sonia Gandhi had returned her Italian passport by claiming that she had renounced her Italian citizenship. But if we accept the argument that holding of passport is an essential requirement of being citizens than person like me would not remain Indian, as I do not hold Passport.
The Bench appreciated the forensic ability of the petitioners in making such a plea, but refused to entertain or adjudicate it for two reasons. First, the petitioners had not stated all material facts to enable the court to examine such a plea with far-reaching implications. Secondly, the challenge so sought to be laid to the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Citizenship Act is very wide and cannot be adjudicated upon without impeding the Central government as a party to the proceedings.
Those who support Mr Sonia Gandhi’s candidature for the Prime Minister's office point out that there is no specific provision in the Constitution, which bars a foreigner who has acquired Indian citizenship from holding the post. But Article 102(1)(d) of the Constitution, dealing with the disqualification of persons from becoming members of Parliament, is germane to this question. This Article reads as follows:
"102. Disqualification for membership: (1) A person shall be disqualified from being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament (d) if he is not a citizen of India, or has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of another country, or is under any acknowledgement of allegiance to a foreign state." Article 9 of the Constitution states: "No person shall be a citizen of India... or be deemed to be a citizen of India... if he has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of any foreign state.
This is what is popularly interpreted to mean that India doesn’t allow dual citizenship. For losing his citizenship, an Indian has to commit the overt act of acquiring the citizenship of a foreign country. Our Constitution doesn’t provide for a voluntary renunciation of citizenship by an Indian for the reason say, he is disgusted with its politicians or with the performance of its cricket team in the World Cup.
On the contrary, Article 10 stipulates, "Every person who is or deemed to be a citizen of India under any of the foregoing the provisions of this part shall, subject to the provisions of any law that may be made by Parliament, continue to be such a citizen."
The Constitution of Italy, on the contrary, allows dual citizenship, implying that an Italian citizen can simultaneously be a citizen of another foreign state also. Conversely, the fact that an Italian has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of another foreign state does not mean he/she has ceased to be a citizen of Italy.
Therefore, the fact that Mrs. Sonia Gandhi has voluntarily acquired Indian citizenship doesn’t, ipso facto imply that she has ceased to be an Italian citizen, unless there is a specific provision in the Italian law for voluntary renunciation of Italian citizenship and she has legally exercised that option.
To prove that Mrs. Sonia Gandhi is a full-fledged Indian citizen now, Mr Pranab Mukherjee declared in an interview that she doesn’t possess an Italian passport now but has been travelling on an Indian passport since 1984. However, possession of passport is not a necessary condition for citizenship. A majority of Indians do not possess a passport, and this fact does not detract from their Indian citizenship.
The moot question, therefore, is not whether Mrs. Sonia Gandhi has acquired the citizenship of India, but whether she has ceased to be a citizen of Italy under the Constitution of that country. If the answer to the second question is in the negative, she will come under the prohibition in Article 102 (1)(d) of our Constitution from being a member of Parliament and consequentially, from becoming the Prime Minister.
The statement that the Supreme Court of India found the issue in favour of Sonia Gandhi is factually incorrect. The petition stating that Sonia Gandhi cannot contest for Lok Sabha was filed by a private individual. The Supreme Court dismissed it with the limited finding that the petitioner had not established that Sonia Gandhi suffered from any disqualification. It was not a definitive finding after examining the relevant aspects of the law and the facts. The point I had raised in above paragraph, which is still valid, was neither advanced before the court nor examined by the judges.

To see all articles of writer visit www.bharatsangh.com