International Herald Tribune (a New York Times publication) had an interesting "letter from India" by Anand Giridharadas (published February 12, 2009). Labeled "India's case of Obama envy", the letter purported that India was suffering a political angst that needed an “Obama-like” person.

First - what is the author's, and indeed India's, understanding of Obama, and his election as the first black US president? Obama became President of the US because of a series of unfortunate events. To wit:

1. Bush fatigue, and revulsion towards all things Republican (regrettably, understandable). Even if the Democrats had nominated a donkey (ironically their mascot), the ruminant quadriped would have won.

2. The Economy, and McCain's admitted lack of economic understanding. Till September, and after the Republican convention, McCain had reversed Obama's poll lead only to watch it wither with the stock market.

3. The liberal press that was so keen to see a black president that it neglected Obama's history of associations with unsavory characters (Bill Ayers, Rev Wright, etc) and absent tract record (remember all those "present" votes?) to hand him the Presidency.

4. Race - like it or not, Obama won because he is black. I know of so many whites who voted for him simply because they felt they needed to expunge the memory of slavery from their collective consciousness by voting for a black person.

5. Gifted, meaningless rhetoric that had Chris Mathews of MSNBC urinating in his pants, and wondering why his legs were tingling.

So, what part of the above would Mr Giridharadas like to see in an "Indian Obama"? Election to the Prime Minister's position simply because that person is Muslim or of a lower caste, irrespective of qualifications? Or to elect a PM despite meaningless empty rhetoric by someone who has no track record and shady associations? Don't we already do that? Or are we to be enamored by Mr Obama's age? Let's look at this critically and retrospect some of the most remarkable changes that have happened in the world recently. Mr Gorbachev was no spring chicken when he launched Perestroika or Glasnost. Mr Deng was in his 70s when he turned China from a communist economic pygmy into today's giant. In contrast, take young turks in countries such as Georgia, where Mr Sakashvilli picked a ridiculous fight with Russia and lost a good portion of his country. 

Or better still, take Mr Obama himself. His first three weeks as US President have been less than stellar, with appointees dropping like flies, with numerous ethical compromises that would make the Chicago political machine proud (such as hiring lobbyists after campainging against them), presenting half-baked economic plans (and this from the best of the best of the best, a team that was to have hit the ground running), and abandoning away from campaign promises (so, are we going to drill off shore or not, and are guns going to be banned in DC or not?)

Mr Giridhardas writes

 

"The magazine fleshed out this thought with a survey of 1,600 young people spread across eight Indian cities. Two-thirds of India's 1.2 billion people are under 35, and the survey found them craving an Obamaesque new politics."

Remember, most Indians live in villages and have no idea of who Mr Obama is, nor do they care. To survey young folks in cities, who are bound to be connected to the internet and the world, and to extrapolate that to the country as a whole smacks of elitism at best and is disingenuous at worst.

The author also contradicts himself by saying that those surveyed wanted change (well, who doesn't?) and that the majority in India (again, careful with that word) wanted a authoritarian leader. Doesn't that contradict what Obama purportedly stands for? Despite my misgivings for him, I would not call Obama authoritarian by any stretch of the imagination. 

To paraphrase Pink Floyd, we don't need no Barack Obama, we don't need no thought control (especially by a liberal media).