In the fading light that was the 'criminal netas' ordinance -- a
friend called it ordinonense -- the tallest shadow remains that of Rahul
Gandhi.
He intervened to get scrapped a completely anachronistic and
contrary-to-the-mood-of-the-people piece of legislation that the government
tried to push through, assisted by friends and foes who turn friends in such
situations.
Leave aside the conspiracy theories of this being an orchestrated
political move, that the President was hesitant to sign and so on. What's the
worst criticism that Rahul has faced with his ordinance outburst? That he was
"rude" and that he undermined the prime minister and his office as
well as the cabinet and why did be not speak up earlier. In short, Rahul Gandhi
told the entire government: this is where you get off on this one. No please,
no thank you and a supposed sorry in private.
Look at these two criticisms separately. Maybe Rahul was rude, his
language intemperate, unparliamentary and other such euphemisms usually
used by people to say that they are too classy and well brought up to say it
the way he did. That is a load of bollocks, but let’s let that pass for the
moment. The point here is that Rahul Gandhi took charge of the situation, got
out there and vocalised his opposition to an ordinance that most if not all of
us thought was despicable. Surely it can’t be worse that he was brash? So rough
on the PM that that even Narendra Modi had to put an arm around the PM’s
shoulder and damned Rahul for not respecting his won “buzurg” leader? This is the same Modi who had not problems
ditching the very “buzurg” who had propped him at his worst times.
This is the young, new, aspirational, get-there-already India that
demands change, wants it quickly and wants it now. Sometimes, it gets rough
around the edges. If Rahul Gandhi thinks that the Cabinet and the Prime
Minister were wrong about this ordinance and he got it scrapped, I think that’s
good for us and good for him as well. And let’s also admit that he knew even
before he spoke that what he says, goes. If he screwed over the PMO and
Cabinet, it’s because he knows he can. And, unlike us who have to wait in line
for every five years to come up, he can do it whenever he wants. So, Rahul, get
angry, do it more frequently.
But that is where I have a problem. If this ordinonsense makes him
angry, then there is a whole lot more to get angry about. For instance, is he
angry with FDI, capital punishment, Telangana, Pakistan?
No one has really heard Rahul’s position on FDI. Is he fully in favour?
Does he want small shopkeepers to be protected? What does he think about the
local sourcing matter? Take Telangana. A state that most unexpectedly
contributed to the UPA’s return in 2009 has been split into two after decades
of waiting. Is Rahul ok with that? Would he back the split of Uttar Pradesh
into three, as Mayawati has suggested several times? Maharashtra? What are his
views on smaller states in general? Or capital punishment, given the number of
hangings in the past few months, including those of Kasab and Afzal Guru. Or
Pakistan: is he in favour of talks or of a pause given the border situation?
Should the PM have met Nawaz in New York? Why was not angry with the
government’s handling of the December 2012 protests outside Parliament? All
these are issues similar to the criminal netas ordinance, because all of them
in the past couple of years and even last few days have been in the public
mindspace, just like the scrapped ordinance. We need to know what he thinks
about these as well.
As for the second criticism that Rahul Gandhi “undermined” the
position of the PM, his office and Cabinet, this not the the first time that
Rahul Gandhi has taken a different path from the government. In Niyamgiri, he
sided with the tribals who were fighting an MNC from taking over their land.
During the Lokpal debate that this government flubbed so badly, he said in Lok
Sabha that the Lokpal should be a statutory body accountable to Parliament,
even though that came to naught. The PMO, and its very clear, didn’t need Rahul
Gandhi to undermine it. People within the government was doing a fine job of
that. Oddly enough, every one of those – whether in government, party, media or
opposition -- who had left no opportunity pass to show down the prime
minister’s office were all out in force to protect its honour after this perceived
“slight”.
Did he belittle the prime minister personally? In the best tradition
of our country, he did speak out of turn and embarrass an elder. But to me, the
choice in this matter is pretty clear: I would rather this tradition be broken
than perpetuate one where the politician can get away with anything and
everything because no one got angry enough to do anything about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment