What if
it was the similar story, the expression (in
this case anger) forgot how to express itself!
But,
anyway, it was a winning combination, both rare events – Manmohan Singh was
speaking and the words he uttered in the Parliament on Friday (August 30) expressed
he was angry.
It was
just yet another characteristically dull and familiar day of the Indian
Parliament in session when Manmohan, uncharacteristic of him, decided to take
on the Opposition even if his flat, expressionless face and a flat voice, once
again, killed the essence.
Whatever
he says has stopped making any difference. Probably he knows it well and so he
doesn’t look making efforts to speak regularly. That may be a reason that he speaks
so less, until the reactions on his recruited silence (or reticence) become too extreme.
His
condition is precarious one should understand and he should be given the benefit
of being a weak prime minister with no political base who, in the prevailing
circumstances, has been given a fragile set-up to operate with.
Manmohan’s
condition as the prime minister of the nation is too dependent on signals from
the all powerful Nehru-Gandhi family. In fact, the populism (or the economic imprudence) of the policies forced by the
Nehru-Gandhi family has effectively killed the economist in Manmohan Singh.
And the
opportunity cost for it has been immense. It has effectively wiped out whatever
good Manmohan had earned during decades of his career as an economist and an
economist-cum-politician.
From a
talking point for economic reforms, he has become the favourite political
character of jokes and satires.
That
would be a natural causal agent for anger. And when it gets mixed with
difficult circumstances like the free, steep fall of Rupee, a declining GDP
rate and an economy in mess, something that has been much of his government’s
doing where he was forced to remain a mute spectator, it fuels the fire to
create the rare flames that emerge as the ‘words of anger’ from Manmohan’s
otherwise silent façade.
Okay,
he needs to vent it but he cannot blame and target the ‘original’ reasons for
his precarious situation so it’s better to dissipate it on the opposition
benches that is what he did on Friday.
What if
his expressionless face didn’t give anything when he was expressing his ‘great
outrage’, what if his flat voice didn’t say anything when he was ‘aggressively
hitting back’.
After
all, the ‘words of anger’ were there (what if one of the most expressive words used
by him was expunged from the Parliament records).
After
all, he must be given the benefit of his ‘precarious’ position.
©/IPR: Santosh Chaubey - http://severallyalone.blogspot.com/
