Silence is always scary and spells confusion. It endorses the perception that a silent leadership, not engaged in committed dialogue with all those pulling in different directions on endless complicated issues that face us today, is not able to rise above the petty political considerations and lacks a fundamental commitment to the cause. The sense one gets is that the leadership is not in control. To be in control it is necessary that the leader believes in the policy and in its effective administration. Chaos ensues when that is not the case and the average citizen can see that very clearly. Unfortunately, when a regime crosses the three-year mark and is expected to internally assess its policies and performance, it begins to be overwhelmed by a sense of denial, which compels it to insulate itself from reality. I used to think that the coalition of the United Progressive Alliance would be different, would set down a new idiom of political functioning and would restructure the operation of government. But it was not to be.
There was a time when ‘national’ leaders felt that it was their responsibility to quell social disturbances and restore stability and peace. They would leap into the fray, come together, thrash out issues and get the situation under control. They would not hide in protected enclaves. They were democrats. Jawaharlal Nehru believed he was the ruler of India and dispensed his judgment on all national issues. Indira Gandhi did the same. Sadly, this new kind of politics, where you allow the situation to deteriorate so that it can adversely affect an opposing political party, is, in my book, anti-national.
What happened?
The civil war that has erupted in Rajasthan and the National Capital Region is a direct result of failed electoral promises based on potentially volatile issues that have come home to roost. All parties are responsible and all parties, bar none, have misused the less privileged Indian for their personal victories. Ashok Gehlot, who failed to rule Rajasthan effectively or keep corruption at bay despite being ‘clean’ himself, made all the predictable noises as we saw this dreadful, mad violence escalate — noises that have not been able to extricate us from the unravelling horrors. In contrast, Sachin Pilot was out there in the field, speaking a matter-of-fact language, making a plea for sanity, not running scared of addressing the ‘mob’, because he sees them as frustrated, exploited citizens with unfulfilled demands.
Why was Gehlot not in Dausa or in Sawai Madhopur? Where was the chief minister and members of her cabinet? Where was the man who has relentlessly aggravated and added fire to his divisive caste-agenda? That ‘senior’ leader has not able to step out of his age and time even though the world around him has radically changed, thereby making a political dinosaur out of him. He should have been at the scene of the crime in a wheelchair, appeasing the ‘mob’ that he has created. Why has he gone behind the purdah?
I am curious. Why didn’t the prime minister deviate from the sinister norm of silence, particularly since he is not a typical politician with a small constituency but an a-political person with the entire country as his constituency? He could have forced an all-party emergency meet with chief ministers and top leaders to arrive at a fresh solution. Why did he not address the people using the communication tool of the government — Doordarshan — and make a fervent plea, on day one, for peace, calm and sanity? Surely it is he who can muster a consensus and diffuse the ridiculous and small-minded partisan positions? He should have been advised to step forward, out of the seeming rot and mire, to engage with India and make a positive impact at a time when the UPA is beginning to lose ground with rising anarchy and divisiveness.
