By Tavleen Singh
|
Let me begin by admitting that I wish I
did not have to analyse Rahul Gandhi's first major address to the
nation. It feels too much like kicking a helpless puppy. But, just as it
would be impossible for a film critic to ignore Shah Rukh Khan's latest
film, it is impossible for a political columnist to ignore the first
speech made by a man who has been the designated heir of the Gandhi
dynasty ever since he entered politics nearly a decade ago.
Rahul Gandhi said last week that his
'DNA' was his reason for being in politics. I understood this to mean
that he may never have been in politics if it had not been his
unfortunate lot to take care of the family business. Lately, since he
was appointed vice-president of the Congress party, Rahul has seemed to
change from being a very reluctant prince to a much less reluctant
future prime minister. Even then, from the moment Rahul took centre
stage at last week's CII meeting it seemed to me as if he were
playacting at being a political leader, as if someone had written for
him a speech that he did not fully understand.
He began by
pronouncing that India was "not a country, but an energy". And, he went
on to explain, the energy that constitutes India comes from her sacred
rivers "that we worship". If only he had remembered this later when he
was asked that question about water and he went into a long, meandering
discourse about everything except water. He could have told us
why governments headed for decades by his family allowed these sources
of India's energy to be reduced to sewers. Was it because, like him,
they too thought India was 'not a country' but an abstraction in which
polluted rivers, filthy villages, chaotic cities and desperate poverty
were really irrelevant? If this is Rahul's 'vision' for India, then it
has already been realised.
There is more to the vision though,
because within seconds of describing India as 'not a country', he
discovered in it the "largest pool of human capital that mankind has
ever known". On a "dark night on the Gorakhpur Lokmanya Tilak" to
Mumbai, he met young people filled with hopes and dreams and realised
that it was important to nurture the dreams of men like Girish the
carpenter.
This is
when my doubts about his 'vision' really began. He acknowledged, in an
abstract sort of way, that the dreams of young Indians die because they
are victims of an obsolete education system, horrible poverty and
chronic unemployment.
He talked of a broken political system and the importance of democracy
filtering down to the villages, but he then took credit on behalf of the
UPA government for having created "rights-based governance". In
doing this he appeared to absolve the government of its responsibility
to provide the tools that enable young Indians to realise their dreams.
The two most important tools are a halfway decent education and a
halfway decent job. But Rahul seemed to think the government had done
its bit and it was now the responsibility of big business to do the
rest. In professorial tones, he advised the richest men in India that if
they listened to "the voice of a billion Indians", their businesses
would grow.
He seemed tangentially to have noticed
that it was not easy to do business in India because he then made that
remark about making it "on the moon" if you can make it here. What he
appeared not to have noticed is that no government in recent history has
done more to poison the atmosphere for business than the one run on his
behalf by his Mummy and Dr Manmohan Singh. Judging
from the sycophantic, snivelling praise that Rahul's speech invoked
from the captains of industry, they more than deserve a return to the
licence raj, but does India?
Does India deserve a prime minister who
started the economic downturn when he went personally to Orissa to order
the closure of a factory that could have made India the world's centre
for aluminum production? Does India deserve a leader whose political
ideas remain so mysterious and abstract that he thinks of this country
as a beehive?
Rahul
Gandhi himself has acknowledged often that he does not want to be a
politician. So this could be the right time to make a career change. Let
him marry a good woman, have children, travel and do all the things
that being a politician in a country that is "not a country" appear to
prevent him from doing. If his first address to the nation is
anything to go by, politics is not for him. The very thought of him
being India's interlocutor in the forums of the world is scary. What
would other leaders make of his abstractions?
Source : The Indian Express
Comments
Post a Comment
Please leave a comment, as it helps us to improve our articles...!