Treaty of Waitangi divides “Land of Long White” before elections
As general elections are scheduled in November 2008, the debate over Treaty of Waitangi – founding document of New Zealand gears up.
The two main political blocks – the Labour Party led by Prime Minister Helen Clark and the
National party led by John Key is debating over settlement of the Treaty of Waitangi signed between Maori chiefs and the British Crown or Pakeha on February 6, 1840. Presently the National leader John Key maintains it’s impossible to settle all issues of the treaty in the next five years while stating the party might abolish the Moari seats once elected to power.
In the previous elections held in October 2005, the Treaty of Waitangi dominated the political circles. No single part or coalition won the majority but the Labor Party won more seats than the National Party.
The Labor party won 50 out of the 121 seats and the National Party won 48 seats and Helen Clark formed coalition government with the support of Progressive party.
The newly formed Maori party won four seats heralding the domination of the Treaty of Waitangi in the political circles.
Treaty of Waitangi 1840
Back ground
When the Treaty of Waitangi was signed February 6, 1840 by the Crown representatives and the Maori chiefs it wasn’t thought the treaty would dominate the politics of the Multi-culturist nation. The Maori chiefs agreed to sign the treaty of their own not forcefully. Historians like Professor Paul Moon, History, Auckland University of Technology says “Maori chief had two main reasons -to agree for the treaty to prevent being exploited by traders of British and the lawlessness prevalent preceding the Treaty and preferring for a settlement with Queen of United Kingdom rather than being invaded by other European powers like France these interests coincided with of the British government.”
The Treaty of Waitangi has four articles and the controversy revolves around the first two articles that had simmered the relations between the Maori and the Pakeha.
First Article:
In the first Article, it was written that the Maori would cede rights and powers of sovereignty to the Queen while Maori chiefs, had signed a document which translates “The Chiefs of Confederation cede the governorship of their lands to the Crown.” The discrepancy lies in the use of the word kawanatanga (governorship) instead of mana (sovereignty) in the Maori version.
Second Article:
The English version guaranteed Maori tribes “the full exclusive possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries which they may collectively or individually possess.”
The Maori version, explains Maori chiefs could posses “the full chieftainship of their lands their homes and all their treasures things.”
The Maori alleges that they had been duped and made to believe they hold sovereignty, and which "The shadow of the land will pass to Queen Victoria, but the substance remains to Maori.”
as per the negotiations of the Treaty.
The use of the word rangatiratanga translates into chieftainship, in the second Article adds to that controversy. These two linguistic discrepancies have been cause of simmering
Maori-Pakeha relationship.
Summary of two different versions
Maori Version
English Version
Article 1
Governor ship is given to the Crown
Sovereignty is given to the Crown
Article 2
The Crown agrees to provide full chieftainship of the land to the Maori
Maori enjoy unlimited rights over the lands, forests and estates but if they ought to sell the land they have to sell in accordance with concurrence of the Queen and so the Crown has pre-empting rights over the land.
Article 3
The Queen would protect all Maori people of New Zealand and give them all the same rights as those of the people of England
The article imparts same rights and privileges of the British subjects to Maori.
Article 4
The different faiths of England, Rome and Maori faith would be protected by the governor
No mention of the religious freedom as in the Maori version
The fourth article mentions that Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand claiming the rights over the Tribes and Territories.
Declaration of Independence
Relationship between Maori chiefs and Parekha was smooth before it was signed and so it turned volatile after it was signed.
New Zealand was declared as independent and sovereign country in 1835 and the Maori chiefs organized as “United Tribes of New Zealand “proclaimed the declaration, and the declaration was drafted by James Busby- the British resident in New Zealand.
The proclamation envisaged Maori chiefs to have their own unique flag enabling trading options in countries like Australia setting precedence of trusting the British, culminating in the signing of the Treaty in 1840.
The Maori’s started calling the new nation as Aotearoa translated in English as “The Land of the Long White Cloud.”
The Land Wars
After the Treaty was signed conflict between Maori and Pakeha shaped in Taranki from 1860 over the sovereignty of the land owned by the Maori that remained contentious There was heavy causalities on both sides while economic and numerical superiority of the Parekha enabled them to recover from the costs of the war, Maori who fared well in the combat couldn’t recover from the losses.
More contentious issues triggered post-war. The New Zealand Settlements Act (NZSA) passed in 1863 took possessions of nearly 16, 000 sq.km that set the tone for future debates on the resettlement and claims after Treaty of Waitangi which in a way would be debated in the elections 2008.
Waitangi Tribunal
A century after NZSA, the Waitangi Tribunal was set up to recommend on Maori’s claims lands being taken by NZSA. The Waitangi Tribunal was formed in 1975 after the Treaty of Waitangi Act was passed and it envisaged Maori to lodge any breaches after the Treaty of Waitangi was signed.
One of main achievements of the Waitangi Tribunal, as considered by neutrals was in recognizing the Te Reo Māori or the Maori, as official language along with English.
As per the recommendations of the Tribunal, a Maori Language Commission was established under the Maori language act 1987.
But the Maori activist had expressed severe reservations against the tribunal. argues that the Tribunal could make only recommendations, and cannot pass orders related to resettlement, and it cannot include the Crown in binding orders of the Tribunal.
Foreshore and Seabed Controversy
The Foreshore and Seabed Controversy is viewed by historians in New Zealand as classic example of the contemporary implications of the Treaty of Waitangi. In 2003 the Court of Appeal in New Zealand affirmed that the Maori could seek customary title deeds from Maori Land Court. It envisaged the extinguishing Maori rights to claim title deeds between the high tide and low tide marks and to the seabed the supposed controversy got aggravated when the Foreshore and Seabed act was enacted in the Parliament by the Helen Clark led the Labour Party government. Helen Clark ensured that the act was meant to ensure public ownership of the foreshore and seabed area in New Zealand which meant the land in contention was owned by the Queen and the Maori can apply for title deeds for ownership.
Further as per the information provided by the Ministry of Justice, New Zealand the act is based on four main principles.
Guaranteeing public access, now and in the future.
Regulating the rights and interests of all New Zealanders.
Protecting existing customary rights and interests; and
Ensuring certainty in respect of rights and interests in the public foreshore and seabed.
The act evoked protests from the main opposition parties led by National Party. The Maori party is likely to benefit from the controversy in the upcoming elections with its continuous opposition against the Foreshore and Seabed act. The controversy surrounding Foreshore and Seabed act heralded the formation of Maori party.
Maori Party
The Long quest of the Maori organisations to press for demands through a political party fulfilled after the creation of the Maori Party. The Maori Party contested all the seven reserved seats for Maori in the 2005 general elections and won four and is expected to increase its tally this year’s election. Poll expert’s view that Maori Party had encroached into the traditional Maori vote bank of the National Party in elections 2005 and the trend is likely to follow in upcoming 2008 general elections.
The Maori party vehemently opposes the principle of the John Key led National Party to abolish the seven Maori seats which is set to dominate in the political circles. The Party structure includes National Council which guides the Party leadership according to the kaupapa. The council includes President and two co-leaders who hold office for three years. The party holds annual National Hui which selects Presidents and Co-Leaders. Whatarangi Winiata is the present Maori Party President.
Waitangi Day Controversy
The Waitangi Day signed in February 6, 1840 was not observed still 1934. Maoris had been campaigning for Waitangi Day to be observed as public holiday which ws Labour Party’s 1957 election manifesto. But after Labour came to power in 1957, political pressure alleged had prevented it from observing.
But in 1960 an act made Feb 6 Waitangi Day, and it was amended 1963 to make it public holiday the North Island of New Zealand, subsequently in 1973 the Labour government made Feb 6 a public holiday in both islands, and changed it to New Zealand Day which incited protests from Maori groups.
Under a new national government in 1976 the day reverted to Waitangi Day. Presently February 6 is observed as national holiday in both the islands of New Zealand and it is likely that the commemorative activities of the 75th anniversary on February 6, 2009 would witness increased protests from the Maori groups with more influence extracted after the elections.
Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=350&objectid=10496342
http://www.justice.govt.nz/foreshore/index.html
http://www.maoriparty.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1056&Itemid=94
http://www.postcolonialweb.org/nz/maorijlg7.html
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Treaty of Waitangi divides “Land of Long White” before elections
Treaty of Waitangi divides “Land of Long White” before elections
As general elections are scheduled in November 2008, the debate over Treaty of Waitangi – founding document of New Zealand gears up.
The two main political blocks – the Labour Party led by Prime Minister Helen Clark and the
National party led by John Key is debating over settlement of the Treaty of Waitangi signed between Maori chiefs and the British Crown or Pakeha on February 6, 1840. Presently the National leader John Key maintains it’s impossible to settle all issues of the treaty in the next five years while stating the party might abolish the Moari seats once elected to power.
In the previous elections held in October 2005, the Treaty of Waitangi dominated the political circles. No single part or coalition won the majority but the Labor Party won more seats than the National Party.
The Labor party won 50 out of the 121 seats and the National Party won 48 seats and Helen Clark formed coalition government with the support of Progressive party.
The newly formed Maori party won four seats heralding the domination of the Treaty of Waitangi in the political circles.
Treaty of Waitangi 1840
Back ground
When the Treaty of Waitangi was signed February 6, 1840 by the Crown representatives and the Maori chiefs it wasn’t thought the treaty would dominate the politics of the Multi-culturist nation. The Maori chiefs agreed to sign the treaty of their own not forcefully. Historians like Professor Paul Moon, History, Auckland University of Technology says “Maori chief had two main reasons -to agree for the treaty to prevent being exploited by traders of British and the lawlessness prevalent preceding the Treaty and preferring for a settlement with Queen of United Kingdom rather than being invaded by other European powers like France these interests coincided with of the British government.”
The Treaty of Waitangi has four articles and the controversy revolves around the first two articles that had simmered the relations between the Maori and the Pakeha.
First Article:
In the first Article, it was written that the Maori would cede rights and powers of sovereignty to the Queen while Maori chiefs, had signed a document which translates “The Chiefs of Confederation cede the governorship of their lands to the Crown.” The discrepancy lies in the use of the word kawanatanga (governorship) instead of mana (sovereignty) in the Maori version.
Second Article:
The English version guaranteed Maori tribes “the full exclusive possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries which they may collectively or individually possess.”
The Maori version, explains Maori chiefs could posses “the full chieftainship of their lands their homes and all their treasures things.”
The Maori alleges that they had been duped and made to believe they hold sovereignty, and which "The shadow of the land will pass to Queen Victoria, but the substance remains to Maori.”
as per the negotiations of the Treaty.
The use of the word rangatiratanga translates into chieftainship, in the second Article adds to that controversy. These two linguistic discrepancies have been cause of simmering
Maori-Pakeha relationship.
Summary of two different versions
Maori Version
English Version
Article 1
Governor ship is given to the Crown
Sovereignty is given to the Crown
Article 2
The Crown agrees to provide full chieftainship of the land to the Maori
Maori enjoy unlimited rights over the lands, forests and estates but if they ought to sell the land they have to sell in accordance with concurrence of the Queen and so the Crown has pre-empting rights over the land.
Article 3
The Queen would protect all Maori people of New Zealand and give them all the same rights as those of the people of England
The article imparts same rights and privileges of the British subjects to Maori.
Article 4
The different faiths of England, Rome and Maori faith would be protected by the governor
No mention of the religious freedom as in the Maori version
The fourth article mentions that Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand claiming the rights over the Tribes and Territories.
Declaration of Independence
Relationship between Maori chiefs and Parekha was smooth before it was signed and so it turned volatile after it was signed.
New Zealand was declared as independent and sovereign country in 1835 and the Maori chiefs organized as “United Tribes of New Zealand “proclaimed the declaration, and the declaration was drafted by James Busby- the British resident in New Zealand.
The proclamation envisaged Maori chiefs to have their own unique flag enabling trading options in countries like Australia setting precedence of trusting the British, culminating in the signing of the Treaty in 1840.
The Maori’s started calling the new nation as Aotearoa translated in English as “The Land of the Long White Cloud.”
The Land Wars
After the Treaty was signed conflict between Maori and Pakeha shaped in Taranki from 1860 over the sovereignty of the land owned by the Maori that remained contentious There was heavy causalities on both sides while economic and numerical superiority of the Parekha enabled them to recover from the costs of the war, Maori who fared well in the combat couldn’t recover from the losses.
More contentious issues triggered post-war. The New Zealand Settlements Act (NZSA) passed in 1863 took possessions of nearly 16, 000 sq.km that set the tone for future debates on the resettlement and claims after Treaty of Waitangi which in a way would be debated in the elections 2008.
Waitangi Tribunal
A century after NZSA, the Waitangi Tribunal was set up to recommend on Maori’s claims lands being taken by NZSA. The Waitangi Tribunal was formed in 1975 after the Treaty of Waitangi Act was passed and it envisaged Maori to lodge any breaches after the Treaty of Waitangi was signed.
One of main achievements of the Waitangi Tribunal, as considered by neutrals was in recognizing the Te Reo Māori or the Maori, as official language along with English.
As per the recommendations of the Tribunal, a Maori Language Commission was established under the Maori language act 1987.
But the Maori activist had expressed severe reservations against the tribunal. argues that the Tribunal could make only recommendations, and cannot pass orders related to resettlement, and it cannot include the Crown in binding orders of the Tribunal.
Foreshore and Seabed Controversy
The Foreshore and Seabed Controversy is viewed by historians in New Zealand as classic example of the contemporary implications of the Treaty of Waitangi. In 2003 the Court of Appeal in New Zealand affirmed that the Maori could seek customary title deeds from Maori Land Court. It envisaged the extinguishing Maori rights to claim title deeds between the high tide and low tide marks and to the seabed the supposed controversy got aggravated when the Foreshore and Seabed act was enacted in the Parliament by the Helen Clark led the Labour Party government. Helen Clark ensured that the act was meant to ensure public ownership of the foreshore and seabed area in New Zealand which meant the land in contention was owned by the Queen and the Maori can apply for title deeds for ownership.
Further as per the information provided by the Ministry of Justice, New Zealand the act is based on four main principles.
Guaranteeing public access, now and in the future.
Regulating the rights and interests of all New Zealanders.
Protecting existing customary rights and interests; and
Ensuring certainty in respect of rights and interests in the public foreshore and seabed.
The act evoked protests from the main opposition parties led by National Party. The Maori party is likely to benefit from the controversy in the upcoming elections with its continuous opposition against the Foreshore and Seabed act. The controversy surrounding Foreshore and Seabed act heralded the formation of Maori party.
Maori Party
The Long quest of the Maori organisations to press for demands through a political party fulfilled after the creation of the Maori Party. The Maori Party contested all the seven reserved seats for Maori in the 2005 general elections and won four and is expected to increase its tally this year’s election. Poll expert’s view that Maori Party had encroached into the traditional Maori vote bank of the National Party in elections 2005 and the trend is likely to follow in upcoming 2008 general elections.
The Maori party vehemently opposes the principle of the John Key led National Party to abolish the seven Maori seats which is set to dominate in the political circles. The Party structure includes National Council which guides the Party leadership according to the kaupapa. The council includes President and two co-leaders who hold office for three years. The party holds annual National Hui which selects Presidents and Co-Leaders. Whatarangi Winiata is the present Maori Party President.
Waitangi Day Controversy
The Waitangi Day signed in February 6, 1840 was not observed still 1934. Maoris had been campaigning for Waitangi Day to be observed as public holiday which ws Labour Party’s 1957 election manifesto. But after Labour came to power in 1957, political pressure alleged had prevented it from observing.
But in 1960 an act made Feb 6 Waitangi Day, and it was amended 1963 to make it public holiday the North Island of New Zealand, subsequently in 1973 the Labour government made Feb 6 a public holiday in both islands, and changed it to New Zealand Day which incited protests from Maori groups.
Under a new national government in 1976 the day reverted to Waitangi Day. Presently February 6 is observed as national holiday in both the islands of New Zealand and it is likely that the commemorative activities of the 75th anniversary on February 6, 2009 would witness increased protests from the Maori groups with more influence extracted after the elections.
Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=350&objectid=10496342
http://www.justice.govt.nz/foreshore/index.html
http://www.maoriparty.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1056&Itemid=94
http://www.postcolonialweb.org/nz/maorijlg7.html
As general elections are scheduled in November 2008, the debate over Treaty of Waitangi – founding document of New Zealand gears up.
The two main political blocks – the Labour Party led by Prime Minister Helen Clark and the
National party led by John Key is debating over settlement of the Treaty of Waitangi signed between Maori chiefs and the British Crown or Pakeha on February 6, 1840. Presently the National leader John Key maintains it’s impossible to settle all issues of the treaty in the next five years while stating the party might abolish the Moari seats once elected to power.
In the previous elections held in October 2005, the Treaty of Waitangi dominated the political circles. No single part or coalition won the majority but the Labor Party won more seats than the National Party.
The Labor party won 50 out of the 121 seats and the National Party won 48 seats and Helen Clark formed coalition government with the support of Progressive party.
The newly formed Maori party won four seats heralding the domination of the Treaty of Waitangi in the political circles.
Treaty of Waitangi 1840
Back ground
When the Treaty of Waitangi was signed February 6, 1840 by the Crown representatives and the Maori chiefs it wasn’t thought the treaty would dominate the politics of the Multi-culturist nation. The Maori chiefs agreed to sign the treaty of their own not forcefully. Historians like Professor Paul Moon, History, Auckland University of Technology says “Maori chief had two main reasons -to agree for the treaty to prevent being exploited by traders of British and the lawlessness prevalent preceding the Treaty and preferring for a settlement with Queen of United Kingdom rather than being invaded by other European powers like France these interests coincided with of the British government.”
The Treaty of Waitangi has four articles and the controversy revolves around the first two articles that had simmered the relations between the Maori and the Pakeha.
First Article:
In the first Article, it was written that the Maori would cede rights and powers of sovereignty to the Queen while Maori chiefs, had signed a document which translates “The Chiefs of Confederation cede the governorship of their lands to the Crown.” The discrepancy lies in the use of the word kawanatanga (governorship) instead of mana (sovereignty) in the Maori version.
Second Article:
The English version guaranteed Maori tribes “the full exclusive possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries which they may collectively or individually possess.”
The Maori version, explains Maori chiefs could posses “the full chieftainship of their lands their homes and all their treasures things.”
The Maori alleges that they had been duped and made to believe they hold sovereignty, and which "The shadow of the land will pass to Queen Victoria, but the substance remains to Maori.”
as per the negotiations of the Treaty.
The use of the word rangatiratanga translates into chieftainship, in the second Article adds to that controversy. These two linguistic discrepancies have been cause of simmering
Maori-Pakeha relationship.
Summary of two different versions
Maori Version
English Version
Article 1
Governor ship is given to the Crown
Sovereignty is given to the Crown
Article 2
The Crown agrees to provide full chieftainship of the land to the Maori
Maori enjoy unlimited rights over the lands, forests and estates but if they ought to sell the land they have to sell in accordance with concurrence of the Queen and so the Crown has pre-empting rights over the land.
Article 3
The Queen would protect all Maori people of New Zealand and give them all the same rights as those of the people of England
The article imparts same rights and privileges of the British subjects to Maori.
Article 4
The different faiths of England, Rome and Maori faith would be protected by the governor
No mention of the religious freedom as in the Maori version
The fourth article mentions that Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand claiming the rights over the Tribes and Territories.
Declaration of Independence
Relationship between Maori chiefs and Parekha was smooth before it was signed and so it turned volatile after it was signed.
New Zealand was declared as independent and sovereign country in 1835 and the Maori chiefs organized as “United Tribes of New Zealand “proclaimed the declaration, and the declaration was drafted by James Busby- the British resident in New Zealand.
The proclamation envisaged Maori chiefs to have their own unique flag enabling trading options in countries like Australia setting precedence of trusting the British, culminating in the signing of the Treaty in 1840.
The Maori’s started calling the new nation as Aotearoa translated in English as “The Land of the Long White Cloud.”
The Land Wars
After the Treaty was signed conflict between Maori and Pakeha shaped in Taranki from 1860 over the sovereignty of the land owned by the Maori that remained contentious There was heavy causalities on both sides while economic and numerical superiority of the Parekha enabled them to recover from the costs of the war, Maori who fared well in the combat couldn’t recover from the losses.
More contentious issues triggered post-war. The New Zealand Settlements Act (NZSA) passed in 1863 took possessions of nearly 16, 000 sq.km that set the tone for future debates on the resettlement and claims after Treaty of Waitangi which in a way would be debated in the elections 2008.
Waitangi Tribunal
A century after NZSA, the Waitangi Tribunal was set up to recommend on Maori’s claims lands being taken by NZSA. The Waitangi Tribunal was formed in 1975 after the Treaty of Waitangi Act was passed and it envisaged Maori to lodge any breaches after the Treaty of Waitangi was signed.
One of main achievements of the Waitangi Tribunal, as considered by neutrals was in recognizing the Te Reo Māori or the Maori, as official language along with English.
As per the recommendations of the Tribunal, a Maori Language Commission was established under the Maori language act 1987.
But the Maori activist had expressed severe reservations against the tribunal. argues that the Tribunal could make only recommendations, and cannot pass orders related to resettlement, and it cannot include the Crown in binding orders of the Tribunal.
Foreshore and Seabed Controversy
The Foreshore and Seabed Controversy is viewed by historians in New Zealand as classic example of the contemporary implications of the Treaty of Waitangi. In 2003 the Court of Appeal in New Zealand affirmed that the Maori could seek customary title deeds from Maori Land Court. It envisaged the extinguishing Maori rights to claim title deeds between the high tide and low tide marks and to the seabed the supposed controversy got aggravated when the Foreshore and Seabed act was enacted in the Parliament by the Helen Clark led the Labour Party government. Helen Clark ensured that the act was meant to ensure public ownership of the foreshore and seabed area in New Zealand which meant the land in contention was owned by the Queen and the Maori can apply for title deeds for ownership.
Further as per the information provided by the Ministry of Justice, New Zealand the act is based on four main principles.
Guaranteeing public access, now and in the future.
Regulating the rights and interests of all New Zealanders.
Protecting existing customary rights and interests; and
Ensuring certainty in respect of rights and interests in the public foreshore and seabed.
The act evoked protests from the main opposition parties led by National Party. The Maori party is likely to benefit from the controversy in the upcoming elections with its continuous opposition against the Foreshore and Seabed act. The controversy surrounding Foreshore and Seabed act heralded the formation of Maori party.
Maori Party
The Long quest of the Maori organisations to press for demands through a political party fulfilled after the creation of the Maori Party. The Maori Party contested all the seven reserved seats for Maori in the 2005 general elections and won four and is expected to increase its tally this year’s election. Poll expert’s view that Maori Party had encroached into the traditional Maori vote bank of the National Party in elections 2005 and the trend is likely to follow in upcoming 2008 general elections.
The Maori party vehemently opposes the principle of the John Key led National Party to abolish the seven Maori seats which is set to dominate in the political circles. The Party structure includes National Council which guides the Party leadership according to the kaupapa. The council includes President and two co-leaders who hold office for three years. The party holds annual National Hui which selects Presidents and Co-Leaders. Whatarangi Winiata is the present Maori Party President.
Waitangi Day Controversy
The Waitangi Day signed in February 6, 1840 was not observed still 1934. Maoris had been campaigning for Waitangi Day to be observed as public holiday which ws Labour Party’s 1957 election manifesto. But after Labour came to power in 1957, political pressure alleged had prevented it from observing.
But in 1960 an act made Feb 6 Waitangi Day, and it was amended 1963 to make it public holiday the North Island of New Zealand, subsequently in 1973 the Labour government made Feb 6 a public holiday in both islands, and changed it to New Zealand Day which incited protests from Maori groups.
Under a new national government in 1976 the day reverted to Waitangi Day. Presently February 6 is observed as national holiday in both the islands of New Zealand and it is likely that the commemorative activities of the 75th anniversary on February 6, 2009 would witness increased protests from the Maori groups with more influence extracted after the elections.
Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=350&objectid=10496342
http://www.justice.govt.nz/foreshore/index.html
http://www.maoriparty.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1056&Itemid=94
http://www.postcolonialweb.org/nz/maorijlg7.html
Thursday, March 27, 2008
India - kaleidoscope of superficial images?MIL, Mar 27, 2008. Balaji
New Zealand: March 27, 2008 - "Which part of India are you from?" asked my fellow-student studying journalism who happens to be from New Zealand where I'm presently based. I replied that though born in Chennai and I had my bread and butter in Delhi.
We were in conversation while on a trip to local crematorium in Hamilton, New Zealand to get first hand-experience as a journalist of how rituals after a person passes away would be observed. But instead of having all her eagerness ahead of the trip, she was more excited in knowing our country asked where is "Bollywood city?"
I was shocked but after collecting my senses and gave answer to her intrigued question that there was no Bollywood city in India. I explained to him that there is a metropolitan city in India called Mumbai, which was formerly known as Bombay. This city is considered as India's commercial capital and is famous for all activities relating to film making and film stars, film studios, prop houses and extra actors, actresses and special sites for action films.
These activities for the last 5 and a half decade have formed a major group of films and film stars and related industry and is famous by the name of Bollywood. In other words Mumbai being a major hub for films and related activities thereto has given this city an international filmy name of Bollywood.
My fellow- student's excitement would not stop there and she continued "Where does Aishwarya Rai stay in India?" I replied that she stays in Mumbai before I could finish my sentence, another eager student pushed his own question "To whom she got married recently?" "Abhishek Bachchan, the son of famous actor Amitabh Bachchan"I replied.
"Does she stay with her in-laws?" was another question. Yes was my reply. All the seven-students joined who were travelling with me in the van joined in a chorus and asked "How a world beauty could be a daughter-in-law at home?"
By this time my anger, temper and impatience all had increased. But collecting all some energy left in me I said "India is a land of contrast and so Indians." All our actors and actress in films and super-stars in cricket become sons and daughters at home. Family to Indians is not an option but a compulsory was my reply.
Silence prevailed and so our conversations stopped till we reached the crematorium. But neither my fellow-students nor my two tutors, who accompanied us, would let my un-open.
While we were observing on crematorium functions and learning nitty-gritty, my tutor this time sneaked in with a question "What is sati?" I countered it by asking how she got the name. She replied that she got to know about it through her reading.
Now, in a definite position to reply I said "Sati is followed by wife of a person who had died and she got to join him in the woods when his body would be burnt." and I continued "Sati is banned from 1987 though we hear some marred incidents related every now and then."
Perhaps, this time to increase their curiosity I went ahead "In olden times when Polygamy was followed by Rajas, sati was followed by all of his wives and his concubines." They were all shell-shocked after hearing this. But all in their mind must be wondering on how a country that could produce world beauties one after another could have the practice of sati.
At the end of our trip and day I was wondering with all my fellow-students," How could India be defined? "Is it atomic weapon, or ahimsa? The country struggling against poverty, or world's largest middle-class society? Is it still simmering with communal tensions, or land of brother-hood and peace? Is it Bollywood or Satyajit Ray? Is it the handloom or the hyperlink?
People who live abroad me or like my fellow-students who had never been to country can guess what India is? The truth is that no single image can possibly build the picture of our country. Probably it's existence that has to be observed with evolution of man-kind.
Lastly, my fellow students chucked on how Indian Premier League and Indian Cricket League could poach cricketers of other countries like Shane Bond of New Zealand while there are many, many Indians who make their living abroad. Another questions and so another contradiction. But my answer would be on another day. (The writer is presently studying journalism course in New Zealand)
We were in conversation while on a trip to local crematorium in Hamilton, New Zealand to get first hand-experience as a journalist of how rituals after a person passes away would be observed. But instead of having all her eagerness ahead of the trip, she was more excited in knowing our country asked where is "Bollywood city?"
I was shocked but after collecting my senses and gave answer to her intrigued question that there was no Bollywood city in India. I explained to him that there is a metropolitan city in India called Mumbai, which was formerly known as Bombay. This city is considered as India's commercial capital and is famous for all activities relating to film making and film stars, film studios, prop houses and extra actors, actresses and special sites for action films.
These activities for the last 5 and a half decade have formed a major group of films and film stars and related industry and is famous by the name of Bollywood. In other words Mumbai being a major hub for films and related activities thereto has given this city an international filmy name of Bollywood.
My fellow- student's excitement would not stop there and she continued "Where does Aishwarya Rai stay in India?" I replied that she stays in Mumbai before I could finish my sentence, another eager student pushed his own question "To whom she got married recently?" "Abhishek Bachchan, the son of famous actor Amitabh Bachchan"I replied.
"Does she stay with her in-laws?" was another question. Yes was my reply. All the seven-students joined who were travelling with me in the van joined in a chorus and asked "How a world beauty could be a daughter-in-law at home?"
By this time my anger, temper and impatience all had increased. But collecting all some energy left in me I said "India is a land of contrast and so Indians." All our actors and actress in films and super-stars in cricket become sons and daughters at home. Family to Indians is not an option but a compulsory was my reply.
Silence prevailed and so our conversations stopped till we reached the crematorium. But neither my fellow-students nor my two tutors, who accompanied us, would let my un-open.
While we were observing on crematorium functions and learning nitty-gritty, my tutor this time sneaked in with a question "What is sati?" I countered it by asking how she got the name. She replied that she got to know about it through her reading.
Now, in a definite position to reply I said "Sati is followed by wife of a person who had died and she got to join him in the woods when his body would be burnt." and I continued "Sati is banned from 1987 though we hear some marred incidents related every now and then."
Perhaps, this time to increase their curiosity I went ahead "In olden times when Polygamy was followed by Rajas, sati was followed by all of his wives and his concubines." They were all shell-shocked after hearing this. But all in their mind must be wondering on how a country that could produce world beauties one after another could have the practice of sati.
At the end of our trip and day I was wondering with all my fellow-students," How could India be defined? "Is it atomic weapon, or ahimsa? The country struggling against poverty, or world's largest middle-class society? Is it still simmering with communal tensions, or land of brother-hood and peace? Is it Bollywood or Satyajit Ray? Is it the handloom or the hyperlink?
People who live abroad me or like my fellow-students who had never been to country can guess what India is? The truth is that no single image can possibly build the picture of our country. Probably it's existence that has to be observed with evolution of man-kind.
Lastly, my fellow students chucked on how Indian Premier League and Indian Cricket League could poach cricketers of other countries like Shane Bond of New Zealand while there are many, many Indians who make their living abroad. Another questions and so another contradiction. But my answer would be on another day. (The writer is presently studying journalism course in New Zealand)
Friday, March 21, 2008
Sonia Gandhi – ten year in office : Political AnalysisMIL, Mar 18, 2008. Balaji
Mach 18, 2008 - While Sonia Gandhi observed 10 year in office as Congress President on March 14, 2008, she had imprinted herself in future history books for many reasons and so would think at present about elections 2009 that would test her endurance as a leader of the highest order.
On a flashback many political pundits, branded her a novice against stalwarts like former Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and BJP's present Prime Ministerial candidate Lal Krishana Advani. Her foreign-origin and her comparatively less experience in politics are her somewhat drawbacks.
But after 10 years she has steered success in journey with help from many quarters that includes her party members, present PM Manmohan Singh, her daughter and son. But politics is supposedly cruel, precisely a snake-ladder game where prediction of steps could be reason for pitfall. But how she managed to win and from where she would go from here on?
Sonia Gandhi's success root cause is her growing experience in politics which she has been practicing for the last 10 years. It's viewed by experts that since she had witnessed the deaths of her brother-in-law, mother-in-law and her husband from close quarters she rather views politics and politicians to be of unworthy. So every step that she took, had been calculated, out from the thinking of a common man rather than a politician. Though born in Italy, she had thoughts like an ordinary Indian.
Many instances could be taken of her statesmanship in politics right from her entry. Within days after the death of Rajiv Gandhi on May 21, 1991, she was offered both the PM post and Congress President. She declined both the posts religiously, which many viewed as reasons citing her grief over her husband's death.
It's a hard-truth. But she took seven long years to assume the post of captaining the Congress ship that was sinking. Following Rajiv Gandhi's assassination the Congress came to power in the Centre in 1991 under Narashima Rao. But for the occasional mention of Bofors, her name was rarely spelt in public though astrologers had their fingers-crossed for her entry in politics.
Indian politics never witnessed debates on corruption before as during the general elections 1996. The public preferred Atal Behari Vajpayee as better candidate than anyone in the race, including Lal Krishna Advani who was alleged in Hawala case.
But Vajpayee's root to PM was not as easy since people wanted to test his statesmanship, his ability to take India into 21st century and so denying him any sort of majority both 1996 and 1998 general elections. Between two-three years, India say three PM's with two namely Deve Gowda and I K Gujral getting outside help from the Congress.
Sonia Gandhi was mute spectator to the entire drama though her name got well along with the stage. Deve Gowda alleged that Congress withdrew support to the government due to alleged push-ups in Bofors case while Congress had to withdraw support to Gujral's government due to his posture of keeping Dravida Munnetra Kazgham in the cabinet, though DMK was held responsible for Rajiv Gandhi's assassination by the Jain Commission.
Elections were held in 1998 and before that the entry of Sonia Gandhi was announced with her support to campaign Congress. Shortly after the elections results Sonia Gandhi took party president ship from 81-year old Sitaram Kesari. Events began to un-fold after her party premiership including debates on her foreign origin that forced senior party leaders like Sharad Pawar and Sangma to resign.
In the 1999 general elections Congress won the least number of seats ever in it's history while Sonia Gandhi announced her arrival in parliament by winning both Amethi and much talked about Barely constituency. But the general election, thanks to Kargil and the sympathy that people had in Vajpayee after he lost the confidence motion by one vote, BJP returned to power with majority derived from pre-poll alliance.
The dawn of the new century heralded the arrival of Vajpayee's booked ticked in history book and India's emergence as a nuclear and economic power. The general elections held in 2004 brought Congress to power after nearly a decade but still Sonia Gandhi was a reluctant performer. By renouncing the PM post and presenting the chair of PM to economic wizard Manmohan Singh, she asked the people to view her in same breath as the first "Gandhi" whom she had not met once, supposedly the father of Nation, rather like her husband Rajiv Gandhi or mother-in-law, Indira Gandhi.
Sonia Gandhi's legacy would be carried forward by charismatic Rahul or galvanizing Priyanka Gandhi. But her place in history books would be secured for not holding the post but by renouncing it.
Lastly, Sonia Gandhi's relation to India could be summarized. Once a Pakistani journalist summoned that many problems there, is due to lack of leaders but luckily for India, it could produce not only leaders of stature like Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, Vajapayee and Advani but could import a leader like Sonia Gandhi from other country who would leave her legacy with "Gandhi" surname and so would pass on that name to generations. This article only represents author's viewpointmohanbalaji20032004@yahoo.co.in
Mach 18, 2008 - While Sonia Gandhi observed 10 year in office as Congress President on March 14, 2008, she had imprinted herself in future history books for many reasons and so would think at present about elections 2009 that would test her endurance as a leader of the highest order.
On a flashback many political pundits, branded her a novice against stalwarts like former Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and BJP's present Prime Ministerial candidate Lal Krishana Advani. Her foreign-origin and her comparatively less experience in politics are her somewhat drawbacks.
But after 10 years she has steered success in journey with help from many quarters that includes her party members, present PM Manmohan Singh, her daughter and son. But politics is supposedly cruel, precisely a snake-ladder game where prediction of steps could be reason for pitfall. But how she managed to win and from where she would go from here on?
Sonia Gandhi's success root cause is her growing experience in politics which she has been practicing for the last 10 years. It's viewed by experts that since she had witnessed the deaths of her brother-in-law, mother-in-law and her husband from close quarters she rather views politics and politicians to be of unworthy. So every step that she took, had been calculated, out from the thinking of a common man rather than a politician. Though born in Italy, she had thoughts like an ordinary Indian.
Many instances could be taken of her statesmanship in politics right from her entry. Within days after the death of Rajiv Gandhi on May 21, 1991, she was offered both the PM post and Congress President. She declined both the posts religiously, which many viewed as reasons citing her grief over her husband's death.
It's a hard-truth. But she took seven long years to assume the post of captaining the Congress ship that was sinking. Following Rajiv Gandhi's assassination the Congress came to power in the Centre in 1991 under Narashima Rao. But for the occasional mention of Bofors, her name was rarely spelt in public though astrologers had their fingers-crossed for her entry in politics.
Indian politics never witnessed debates on corruption before as during the general elections 1996. The public preferred Atal Behari Vajpayee as better candidate than anyone in the race, including Lal Krishna Advani who was alleged in Hawala case.
But Vajpayee's root to PM was not as easy since people wanted to test his statesmanship, his ability to take India into 21st century and so denying him any sort of majority both 1996 and 1998 general elections. Between two-three years, India say three PM's with two namely Deve Gowda and I K Gujral getting outside help from the Congress.
Sonia Gandhi was mute spectator to the entire drama though her name got well along with the stage. Deve Gowda alleged that Congress withdrew support to the government due to alleged push-ups in Bofors case while Congress had to withdraw support to Gujral's government due to his posture of keeping Dravida Munnetra Kazgham in the cabinet, though DMK was held responsible for Rajiv Gandhi's assassination by the Jain Commission.
Elections were held in 1998 and before that the entry of Sonia Gandhi was announced with her support to campaign Congress. Shortly after the elections results Sonia Gandhi took party president ship from 81-year old Sitaram Kesari. Events began to un-fold after her party premiership including debates on her foreign origin that forced senior party leaders like Sharad Pawar and Sangma to resign.
In the 1999 general elections Congress won the least number of seats ever in it's history while Sonia Gandhi announced her arrival in parliament by winning both Amethi and much talked about Barely constituency. But the general election, thanks to Kargil and the sympathy that people had in Vajpayee after he lost the confidence motion by one vote, BJP returned to power with majority derived from pre-poll alliance.
The dawn of the new century heralded the arrival of Vajpayee's booked ticked in history book and India's emergence as a nuclear and economic power. The general elections held in 2004 brought Congress to power after nearly a decade but still Sonia Gandhi was a reluctant performer. By renouncing the PM post and presenting the chair of PM to economic wizard Manmohan Singh, she asked the people to view her in same breath as the first "Gandhi" whom she had not met once, supposedly the father of Nation, rather like her husband Rajiv Gandhi or mother-in-law, Indira Gandhi.
Sonia Gandhi's legacy would be carried forward by charismatic Rahul or galvanizing Priyanka Gandhi. But her place in history books would be secured for not holding the post but by renouncing it.
Lastly, Sonia Gandhi's relation to India could be summarized. Once a Pakistani journalist summoned that many problems there, is due to lack of leaders but luckily for India, it could produce not only leaders of stature like Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, Vajapayee and Advani but could import a leader like Sonia Gandhi from other country who would leave her legacy with "Gandhi" surname and so would pass on that name to generations. This article only represents author's viewpointmohanbalaji20032004@yahoo.co.in
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
