Is it morally right?

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. 

In fact, Congress party spokes person himself said that, its nothing but gimmicks to promote her book 'Courage and Commitment." Margaret Alva

Coming from Congress many will not agree but the question of morality remains.

Irrespective of the parties a picture of the things that happened as mentioned in the link article are aired.

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/margaret-alva-memoir-congress-questions-veterans-sudden-enlightenment-1432258

every one has the right to expression, which should be used judicially and in public interest.  However if there is any breach of oath of secrecy, there is law to take care of. 

vijay wrote:

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?

This saying is fit one "So Chuhey Khakey Billy Haz Ko Chali.

anil wrote:

vijay wrote:

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?

This saying is fit one "So Chuhey Khakey Billy Haz Ko Chali.

 

In our political system one has to be elected to gain any sort of power. In the case of Margaret Alva, she is an elected  representative and leader in her own right and she has  probably been one of the few clean ministers and top leaders of Congress party without being a sycophant. Thats where she failed and fell out with the Family ! However, someone mentioned that there is a right time for coming out with revelations , who decides that ? except the person themselves ...

Seeing wrongs taking place and keeping silent and getting posts and then later on trying to disassociate oneself and expose them shows selfishness of highest order. So what if they are honest they could be morally dishonest. 

Margaret Alva was in fact steadily demoted after she started speaking out her mind to the press, so it is not as if she has been silent nor been an opportunist. I think she was a great admirer of Manmohan Singh which made her put up with a lot within the party. Now when she is out if it all, if she decided to write down her memories there is no morality involved. In fact the people she had written about should do some introspection about their own deeds  since so many under them are coming up with almost similar revelations..

When one joins an organisation and remains in it fir donkey;s years then it is assumed that he/she agrees with that organisations philosophy.Having flourished and then later on turn against the leaders is morally wrong.

It depends very much on what treatment you have received from your higher ups. If one is not directly involved in any of  the scams and not benefitted by it, where does any question of obligation and morality come in. In fact by opening the lid on the wrong doings she is doing a service to the nation ..