|
|
Comment
No
Confidence
-
Mani Shankar Aiyar
Weary,
puffed and old, the Prime Minister rose on his uncertain
legs at close to midnight to reply a two-day long debate
full of sound and fury but, apparently, signifying, to him,
nothing. For instead of rebutting the charges laid at his
door, he opened by faulting the Leader of the Opposition
for bringing nine charges against his Government. How, he
demanded, can she charge-sheet me? Jaswant Singh cowered
in embarrassment for Vajpayee’s vernacular speech-writers
had failed to ask Jaswant Lord Haw-Haw to explain to their
Great Helmsman the difference between bringing charges in
Parliament and framing a "charge-sheet" in a court
or police thana. So, the Prime Minister, whose strong suit
has never been the subtle nuances of the Queen’s English,
laboured on his point of propriety that as he was PM, nothing
less, it did not behove a lady of doubtful origins to bring
a "charge-sheet" against him. And age, perhaps,
or just incomprehension left him deaf to interruptions from
the Opposition reminding him of the stentorian terms in
which his Finance Minister, in humbler days, always peppered
his speeches with, "I charge the Government … "
with whatever it was charged the govt. of the day. Clearly,
not even in his youthful prime had the Hindi translation
of "charge" – whatever it is – got through to
the Prime Minister.
Following
up this bungling of charges and charge-sheets, the Prime
Minister went on to a little homily about how it was quite
improper, not at all genteel, not in keeping with old-world
etiquette, not quite kosher, to accuse him and his ilk,
as Sonia Gandhi had done, of "incompetence". One
wondered what then was his preferred synonym for "incompetence"
that would better describe the incompetence of the govt.
he has presided over for five years – for the collapse of
GDP growth rates from the Manmohan Singh high of 7.7 percent
to a fraction over 4 per cent in the last four years (1999-2003),
the lowest average rate of growth since Vajpayee and Advani
and George Fernandes were ministers in Morarji Desai’s ill-fated
Janata Party govt. (1977-79). As for agriculture having
slowed to virtual stagnation, foodgrains output having fallen
by 3 per cent last year, handlooms extinguished, small industry
in its death throes, employment growth having sunk to the
lowest since the First Five Year Plan, foreign investment
– direct and portfolio – having dried up, and the stock
market being frozen at 3000 for 25 months since the disaster
of March-April 2001, driving savings and investment rates
down to what they were in the eighties – all of which had
been highlighted in Opposition interventions over the previous
48 hours – the Prime Minister had nothing, absolutely nothing,
to say beyond deploring the semantic correctness of using
the word "incompetent" to describe his incompetence.
Next
came a weird plaint about how foreign policy used to be
a national consensus and why should it be questioned now
that he has two flop summits with Pakistan behind him and
a painful dragging of his knees before the Americans until
the Congress strengthened his nerve to say "No"
to Indian jawans dying for the yanks in Iraq? Nor did he
answer why he and his motley ranks (read Advani) hailed
Pokhran-II as a "turning point", the great and
noble act of exploding a bomb that others had prepared,
which, it was claimed, had turned India into a super-power?
If, indeed, this were the case, then was not Chagai the
Pakistani "turning point"? And if we had so impressed
the world with our nuclear might, how is it that Kargil
took but a twelve-month from Pokhran to unfold? And how
come China thought they should honour the PM’s visit to
Beijing with a blow across the border in Arunachal Pradesh
(just as they had celebrated Foreign Minister Vajpayee’s
"historic, path-breaking" visit to China in 1979
with their delicately timed invasion into Vietnam which
sent Vajpayee scurrying for cover back to Delhi post-haste)?
And where was the "turning Point" in marching
lakhs upon lakhs of our troops to the frontier for ten long
months, so little fazing the Pakistanis that we simply had
to march our men back again? All these were points raised
in Vajpayee’s personal presence in the House. Yet, answer
came there none.
No
answer either to the detailing by the Opposition (read I’il
ole me) of the Subrahmanyam Committee report or the absurdity
of the PM’s defence minister (I stress, "the PM’s defence
minister" for Georgie-Porgie Tehelka is no defence
minister of mine) giving on the floor of our Parliament
(not, please note, the Pakistani Parliament) the same lame
excuse which Pervez Musharraf has trotted out for Kargil
– that while the Line of Control has been "delimited"
on a small map, it has not been "delineated" entirely
on the ground? So, the Govt. of India does not know where
the Line of Control lies? And this is the man the Prime
Minister wants as his defence minister? A joker who actually
wrote (in his Foreword dated 17 December 1999 – four months
before Kargil – to the Penguin edition of D.R. Mankekar’s
‘The Guilty men of 1962’) that Pokhran-II had exploded "the
well-fostered myth" of the "threat from Pakistan"?
Myth? The threat from Pakistan? The defence minister thinks
the threat from Pakistan is a "myth"?
Instead
of dealing with any of this, or the mysteries of the self-styled
most "transparent" defence minister in our history
refusing to share key documents of dodgy defence deals with
Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee, the Prime Minister
went into an absurdist panegyric of the virtues of a man
who loans his official drawing room to his party president
to talk to defence middle-men not above offering a little
something to sweeten the mouths of delegates to a party
convention.
In
his rambling incoherent midnight meanderings, the Prime
Minister answered not one of the many questions put by the
Opposition, failed to enlighten the nation on any of its
doubts, and disgraced what he kept reminding us was a career
of half a century of Parliamentary oration. In half a century,
he seems to have learned nothing of executive responsibility
to Parliament. It really is time he is put to grass.
The
purpose of the Motion of No Confidence was to establish
that Vajpayee is now past it. He did not get the message.
But, thanks to the continuous country-wide telecast of the
avidly watched debate, the country did. Which is why the
crowd that turned up after the No Confidence debate to cheer
Sonia Gandhi at the Bawana rally in Outer Delhi far exceeded
in numbers – and, more important, in enthusiasm – the pre-No
Confidence in East Delhi. Not the vote in the Lok Sabha
but the November state Assembly elections will show the
outcome of the No Confidence Motion. As will November foreshadow
the end of the Vajpayee era at the next Lok Sabha elections.
‘Bye, ‘bye, Vajpayee. Hello, Soniaji.
|
|