On Sonia's inner voice

This is in reference to Sonia Gandhi's inner voice published in the "Other Opinion" column on May 29.

Its concluding lines, that "Gandhi's graceful refusal to serve will dampen an ugly streak of religious fanaticism and xenophobia that taints Indian politics", is in bad taste. The writer of this piece is from a country (the U.S.), which is inhabited by people who -- or their forefathers -- were foreign immigrants. Yet, do they allow any first-generation immigrant to be the head of their government, or even the head of their Republican or Democratic parties?

If they cannot provide such a political allowance, why do they expect other countries to -- and this, too, in a country like India, which has a history and culture that of more than 5,000 years, while the U.S. is less than 300 years young.

If the native and patriotic people of India resist such an attempt, they call it religious fanaticism and xenophobia. Is this not hypocrisy? But, such a dichotomy exists in generally all acts of the American people.

Ms. Gandhi has already been, ipso facto, accepted as the head of a prominent political party, a member of Parliament and opposition leader. Her only qualification to justify her present position is that she happened to have been married to the scion of a prominent political family -- she has done nothing like Mother Theresa or Princess Diana.

The Indian people have not been able to find one meritorious member of Indian origin among them to be their leader. They cannot tolerate each other, but are willing to accept a foreigner to rule over them.

Ms. Gandhi has not given up her chance at premiership at the call of any inner voice. As was widely reported in the media, she left it because her children had persuaded her that they did not want to lose their mother also to any assassin.

DEEPAK NARAIN Bogor, West Java