I am not aware of Margaret Alva's book, do share a few more details about whom she has written now.

But I think it is morally wrong to do so, because either you have enjoyed the benefits of the wrongdoings of others then or you have been a silent witness to it, if you felt it was wrong then why kept silent at all? Why speak about it now and create controversies?

I saw the interview given by her and I don't see anything wrong in sharing her thoughts, which she has done before once when she and her party was in power as well and has suffered the consequences. I know Margaret Alva very well since she comes from Mangalore and her ancestral home is very close to mine. She has been a very upright person and has faced many difficult situations in her political career because of this .If she wants to write about her political experiences , she is free to do so. Just because she speaks about Bofors and Sonia Gandhi and even makes reference to Augusta deal might make some people jittery , because they are involved and coming from an insider shows their true colors ..So, is it right that she keeps quiet about wrong doings when she herself has been at the receiving end so that the wrong doers benefit and get away with all their greed and corrupt deals? On the one hand we say we need transparency but speak about morality when someone ,  has had the guts to speak about it. Why such double standards ?

usha manohar wrote:

I saw the interview given by her and I don't see anything wrong in sharing her thoughts, which she has done before once when she and her party was in power as well and has suffered the consequences. I know Margaret Alva very well since she comes from Mangalore and her ancestral home is very close to mine. She has been a very upright person and has faced many difficult situations in her political career because of this .If she wants to write about her political experiences , she is free to do so. Just because she speaks about Bofors and Sonia Gandhi and even makes reference to Augusta deal might make some people jittery , because they are involved and coming from an insider shows their true colors ..So, is it right that she keeps quiet about wrong doings when she herself has been at the receiving end so that the wrong doers benefit and get away with all their greed and corrupt deals? On the one hand we say we need transparency but speak about morality when someone ,  has had the guts to speak about it. Why such double standards ?

I am agree with you nothing wrong in sharing what some expeience but it must be at right time.

anil wrote:

usha manohar wrote:

I saw the interview given by her and I don't see anything wrong in sharing her thoughts, which she has done before once when she and her party was in power as well and has suffered the consequences. I know Margaret Alva very well since she comes from Mangalore and her ancestral home is very close to mine. She has been a very upright person and has faced many difficult situations in her political career because of this .If she wants to write about her political experiences , she is free to do so. Just because she speaks about Bofors and Sonia Gandhi and even makes reference to Augusta deal might make some people jittery , because they are involved and coming from an insider shows their true colors ..So, is it right that she keeps quiet about wrong doings when she herself has been at the receiving end so that the wrong doers benefit and get away with all their greed and corrupt deals? On the one hand we say we need transparency but speak about morality when someone ,  has had the guts to speak about it. Why such double standards ?

I am agree with you nothing wrong in sharing what some expeience but it must be at right time.

Margaret Alva in her book 'Courage and Commitment',asserted that she has not attacked party chief Sonia Gandhi. Some Congress leaders reacting on this issue,  questioned Margaret Alva why this wisdom dawned on her now.

I'm of the opinion, Margaret Alva's book is an account of her chequered political life. Nothing more.

 

The issue is that if one felt wrong was taking place but continued with the system and gained position and power. That means it was OK to continue association with such elements or events. But when nothing is to be gained then write everything and expose the very persons from whom you had no qualms to accept favors knowing they were not so clean. It is not about Congress leadership, it is against one's own involvement and changing attitude at a later date. What is the difference?

I agree with you. Margaret Alva should have written her book 'Courage and commitment' when she was in power. It's a wrong time she has chosen. It makes a difference. Otherwise her book is nothing but an Autobiography.

The media advisor to previous PM Manmohan Singh enjoyed his job for 5 years in UPA I and when did not get extension wrote a book denouncing him as a weak person and so on. When he was his advisor was he strong?

LOL... A typical opportunist. These type of fence sitters are there in every political party.

The author was a journalist and not a political person.

They were selling themselves then and selling their book now. They all are same and as the saying goes "everyone is naked in the bathroom or is it under the clothes!" Everyone enjoys when the going is smooth and it doesn't take them long before they cringe for smaller things because they didn't get them. It will be the same in coming years too and tilt the balance.