India's Reform Architect Singh Wins PM Post

By Sanjeev Miglani and Terry Friel
NEW DELHI (Reuters) - India's free-market reform architect Manmohan Singh was chosen as prime minister on Wednesday, ending days of political chaos that paralyzed the nation and panicked financial markets.

The 71-year-old economist and former finance minister pledged to press ahead with reforms to usher in "the Indian century," but said they would be tempered to ensure the creation of jobs and to lift millions out of abject poverty.

Accompanied by Sonia Gandhi, the Italian-born Congress party leader who stepped aside to give him the premiership, Singh met President Abdul Kalam to claim power for Congress and its allies after a dramatic day of lobbying.

"We have always said that economic reforms, with emphasis on the human element, will continue," Singh, India's first Sikh prime minister who was wearing a blue turban, told reporters.

more: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5195923

From what little I know about this preson, I know he is very smart person. Our last leader was essentially "brain dead" not much different than Bunnypants. This guy has a degree in Economics from a Ivy League college, and is the architect of many reforms which has brought much prosperity to India. Not a bad choice considering the corrupt leaders that were there in the past. I hope he continues to do the good work he has in the past.

Without the Left Front support, I don't think this will last at all. I understand Congress' desire to appease the markets with soothing words, but if there isn't a serious effort to curtail selling off state assets and to spur jobs growth, new elections will be a necessity. Without the CPI and CPIM, there can be no majority.

How can it be that a person (Sonia Gandhi) can win an election and then say, oh I'm not going to take that position after all -- let's give it to someone else of our choosing. This seems to be extremely anti-democratic.

I assume there is something about the electoral or parliamentary process in India that allows for this. Please enlighten me if possible. Thanks.

It only won a plurality (the most votes but not more than half). In order to form a government, the Congress Party needs the support of other parties. These parties were leary of supporting forming a government lead by Ghandi.

Sonia Ganhdi was until she stepped down was the president of Congress party. Congress party got the most seats in the lower house of parliament (and importantly more than the BJP), so with support of smaller parties can form governing coalition. The president of the party leading the governing coalition is then invited by the Indian president (a figurehead) to become prime minister. By stepping down as Congress party president she opens position for Singh.

Importantly, Gahdhiji was running for reelection to her parliamentary seat which she won and will not give up. The office of prime minister was not any ballot.

As an aside, Congress Party has a pretty good web site . . .
http://www.congress.org.in/

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

According to its constitution, India is a "sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic." Like the United States, India has a federal form of government. However, the central government in India has greater power in relation to its states, and its central government is patterned after the British parliamentary system. On several occasions, "the Centre", the national government, has dismissed state governments and imposed President's rule on several states.

The government exercises its broad administrative powers in the name of the President, whose duties are largely ceremonial. The president and vice president are elected indirectly for 5-year terms by a special electoral college. Their terms are staggered, and the vice president does not automatically become president following the death or removal from office of the president.

Real national executive power is centered in the Council of Ministers (cabinet), led by the Prime Minister of India. The president appoints the prime minister, who is designated by legislators of the political party or coalition commanding a parliamentary majority. The president then appoints subordinate ministers on the advice of the prime minister.

India's bicameral parliament consists of the Rajya Sabha (Council of States) and the Lok Sabha (House of the People). The Council of Ministers is responsible to the Lok Sabha.

The legislatures of the states and union territories elect 233 members to the Rajya Sabha, and the president appoints another 12, who are experts in science or the arts. The elected members of the Rajya Sabha serve 6-year terms, with one-third up for election every 2 years. The Lok Sabha consists of 545 members; 543 are directly elected to 5-year terms. The other two are appointed by the President if he feels that the Anglo-Indian Community is underrepresented.


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

The Prime Minister of India is, in practice, the most powerful person in the government of India. The Prime Minister is technically outranked by the President of India, but because the President's duties are largely ceremonial, the Prime Minister has effective responsibility for government.

India follows a parliamentary system of government, modelled after that of the United Kingdom to which it was formerly subject. In this system, the Prime Minister is generally the leader of a party (or coalition of parties) that can gain a majority in the lower house (Lok Sabha) of the Parliament of India.

allows Congress Party to elect a diffirent party president. Singh has now been elected party president and will invited by Indian president to put forth majority coalition such that he becomes prime minister.

She said she will still hold that post but won't serve as Prime Minister.

Very interesting. None of this has been clear from the reports I've been hearing (though obviously I haven't been reading deeply on the subject). Cheers for DU one more time!

similar to the British, in that when the public votes, they vote for the party, not the prime minister directly.

Sonia Gandhi was (and still is as far as I know) the head of the Congress Party, but that doesn't necessarily mean that people are voting for her as PM, though it's traditionally been the case that the head of the party turned out to be the PM.

he is a gentleman and a scholar.

very important fact there.

:kick::kick::kick:

:shrug:

.....it was kind of meant as a tongue-in-cheek kind of joke, especially silly :silly: since I don't know why it would matter to a journalist what color turban the new PM was wearing.:hi:

Maybe a blue turban in India speaks of a kind of symbol for what the man represents, and I'm just not aware of the symbolism. But they didn't mention what Mrs. Ghandi was wearing.

So.... the double-whammy of the Bible statement, AND the fact that his turban was mentioned at all, and nothing about what anybody else was wearing.... just made me go "hmmmmm". That's all I meant by it.

DOES it matter what color turban he was wearing?

:kick::kick:

Although so many confuse them nowdays, it's forgiven, I suppose.

Most Common English translation I could find
From Century 5 Quatrain 55
Out of the country of Greater Arabia
Shall be born a strong master of Mohammed...
He will enter Europe wearing a Blue turban.
He will be the terror of mankind.
Never more horror.

In addition, Singh is a Sikh, not a 'strong master of Mohammed' (if that means Muslim, as many interpretations seem to think).

is that Singh is the first non Hindu prime minister of India.

If he's not Hindu?

:kick:

which kicked ass. India was basically socialist and protectionist (and dirt poor) for 40 years before his reforms. The BJP (like the Republicans) fucked it up by making the rich richer and pushing nationalism and religious hatred.

Singh is more Clintonian in feeling that everyone can benefit from trade. And social programs are a good thing. Because everyone suffers equally under socialism/communism.

Surely you can differentiate between Clinton's policies and Reagan's. Republicans help only the rich, Democrats try to help everyone. The Congress party is comparable to the US Democratic party.