Please tell me why should he have such a position in INdia? Does he have any other qualification besides being related to a sham dynasty? Doesn't it bother you that in Democractic India, democracy is a farce?
Well I'm not the one who appointed him, so I don't know why you are asking me, but assuming its a general question, I shall try to reply.
His qualifications are a page long really. Important ministerial posts in the 80s (minister of state for industry, MoS for finance), chief minister of a very important state of Karnataka for six years, governor of another important state, Maharashtra. Those are his constitutional positions.
Politically, he has been elected several times to the Indian parliament as well as the Karnataka state legislature - the one and only criterion for political success in a true democracy. Why exactly is Indian democracy a farce, when a person who has excellent rapport with and support of the common people and proved himself in important constitutional posts, is given charge of a ministry? Isn't that the very best of democratic ideal? I can name several ministers, congress or BJP or ANY OTHER party, who have had and still have people of far lower credentials. (What qualifications did Uma bharti have to be sports minister, how many times has the prime minister won an election?) Now you may not think that this person should be given a ministry, and you are free to your opinion (I neither support nor oppose SM Krishna), but this is EXACTLY what you get in a healthy democracy. You may not like the result you get from the democratic process, but no better form of government has been discovered yet.
So to sum up, no this particular issue doesn't show our democracy is a sham, on the contrary, it shows that it is thriving and kicking in this part of the world.
