I've been a long-time reader of The Hindu, a well-known and respected daily based out of Madras, Tamil Nadu. A particular article on today's paper seemed like a very spin-doctorish, lopsided and biased analysis to me.
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/t20-politics-has-run-its-course/article4188766.ece
The article be Mr.Harish Khare, former media adviser to the PMO talks about the deploring standards of parliamentary behaviour in particular and the steady fall of debate standards in the country, in general. Yes, I agree with the issues raised about the fall in quality but I don't agree with the examples he quotes so eloquently and the inferences he draws therein.I'll attempt a point-by-point rebuttal.
As it so happens, I happened to watch Mrs.Swaraj's speech in full. She spoke in chaste Hindi for almost an hour on, what in her opinion, were the possible fallout of introducing FDI in retail without due deliberation as to the consequences. In fact, I could see that the ruling party MPs constantly interrupted her, raising hullabaloo which forced her to raise her voice to be heard. This fact Mr.Khare comfortably white-washes and portrays Mrs.Swaraj as shrill. And, as far as I could remember there was nothing remotely close to a personal attack on Mrs.Sonia Gandhi. I wonder what Mr.Khare is referring to here. To be honest, I felt Mrs.Swaraj made an excellent job of her speech. She was not all eloquence, backing all her claims by solid evidence. It was no mere rhetoric. And, talking about the CBI angle to the issue, I think the entire public is well-aware of the CBI being used as an ally by any ruling party in the Centre to witch-hunt opponents. We need no remainder of the vacillating issue of the Taj Corridor case involving Ms.Mayawati where the temperature raises or thaws based on BSP's proximity to the Centre. Mr.Khare need not pretend to be a saint. The Aam Aadmi knows that the vote also hinged on the FDI Vs. CBI factor.
Mr.Khare is right when he asserts "Violence in our daily political discourse is bound to breed violent proclivities in political society".
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/t20-politics-has-run-its-course/article4188766.ece
The article be Mr.Harish Khare, former media adviser to the PMO talks about the deploring standards of parliamentary behaviour in particular and the steady fall of debate standards in the country, in general. Yes, I agree with the issues raised about the fall in quality but I don't agree with the examples he quotes so eloquently and the inferences he draws therein.I'll attempt a point-by-point rebuttal.
Sushma Swaraj, Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, otherwise a mild-mannered leader with a becoming sobriety, gave in to this mood — with totally unintended consequences. Not satisfied with being personal and offensive to the Congress president, she shrilly suggested that the Uttar Pradesh-based parties — the Samajwadi Party and the Bahujan Samaj Party — were obliged to help the government out because the Central Bureau of Investigation had been unleashed on the leaders of these two outfits.
As she saw it, the issue was not the presumed merits or deficiencies in the government’s initiative; rather it was a simple matter of “FDI vs. CBI” — a classic T20 formulation.
As it so happens, I happened to watch Mrs.Swaraj's speech in full. She spoke in chaste Hindi for almost an hour on, what in her opinion, were the possible fallout of introducing FDI in retail without due deliberation as to the consequences. In fact, I could see that the ruling party MPs constantly interrupted her, raising hullabaloo which forced her to raise her voice to be heard. This fact Mr.Khare comfortably white-washes and portrays Mrs.Swaraj as shrill. And, as far as I could remember there was nothing remotely close to a personal attack on Mrs.Sonia Gandhi. I wonder what Mr.Khare is referring to here. To be honest, I felt Mrs.Swaraj made an excellent job of her speech. She was not all eloquence, backing all her claims by solid evidence. It was no mere rhetoric. And, talking about the CBI angle to the issue, I think the entire public is well-aware of the CBI being used as an ally by any ruling party in the Centre to witch-hunt opponents. We need no remainder of the vacillating issue of the Taj Corridor case involving Ms.Mayawati where the temperature raises or thaws based on BSP's proximity to the Centre. Mr.Khare need not pretend to be a saint. The Aam Aadmi knows that the vote also hinged on the FDI Vs. CBI factor.
The BSP leader framed her argument in an institutional context: a government defeat would embolden the BJP to continue its two-year-old strategy of parliamentary disruption, a technique that had already eroded parliamentary institutions’ credibility and respect.So, Mr.Khare is OK when Ms.Mayawati thinks that the stability of the government takes precedence over an issue of far-reaching national importance? How else would one justify this stance where one votes in support of a particular policy decision which, in many countries has known to unsettle the indigenous social setups, arguing that a defeat would cause a collapse of the government? The very ideal enshrined in a parliamentary approach to government to keep a check on reckless policy decisions by the executive. A dismissal by the legislative is in fact a opportunity to re-examine the policy and re-work it to suit the needs of the people.
Like everyone else, Ms Mayawati knew that a setback on the FDI issue would have been much more than a defeat for the Manmohan Singh government. It would have advertised to every stakeholder at home and abroad that the Indian parliamentary system was no longer able to generate for the executive the requisite legislative sanction behind any kind of policy coherence. She unwittingly ended up providing a much-needed refurbishing to the basic scheme of our constitutional arrangements.
It is indeed somewhat mystifying as to why Ms Swaraj, who otherwise has the temperament of a one-down batsman in a five-day cricket test match, got seduced into recklessness. Perhaps the only explanation is that the BJP (as also its cheerleaders in the media) has been taken in by the success notched up by the Gujarat Chief Minister in the style of a limited overs-swashbuckler.So, if someone is opposing FDI that someone is reckless?? Is that what Mr.Khare is implying? And, cheerleaders in the media? For the BJP?? Mr.Khare, that in anybody's opinion has to be the 'joke of the decade'. Well, BJP is one party that is at the receiving end of the most biased and agenda-driven of media coverages. Anything BJP is equated to Hindutva, Saffron terror, what not! I wonder if Mr.Khare lives in India only. I'm not even venturing into the Gujarat cottage industry of NGOs working against Mr.Modi.
In fact, Narendra Modi is the first political leader of some consequence who has built up an aura around himself by rough-talking. His handlers have crafted a macho image for him, which now critically hinges on his perceived ready and uninhibited willingness to bad-mouth anyone; he has been projected as having the ability to “take on” anyone, and that he is unafraid of any holy cow. Mr. Modi is loud and immodest in self-praise and self-promotion; unrestrained in his nasty comments about Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Manmohan Singh. He tickles our baser instincts, makes us feel good in our small-mindedness. So invidious a toll has the Modi-type aggression taken on our collective sensibilities that a gentle, soft-spoken Manmohan Singh is dismissed in middle class conversations as a namby-pamby.Well, Modi-bashing is the flavor of the season. Mr.Khare adds his 2 cents' worth. It has been a while since India saw a strong, decisive figure as a ruler of the state. After almost two terms of Manmohan Singh anyone with a remotely strong and decisive approach seems macho. Mr.Khare talks about bad-mouthing, Well he should remember the "Maut ka Saudagar" comment in the last Gujarat Assembly elections, by none other than the Congress President. So who is bad-mouthing, Mr.Khare? Mr.Modi, has demonstrated in not one, but two consecutive elections, with thumping majority, that his agenda of development-driven and strong leadership is what people of Gujarat aspire for. The statistics speak for Mr.Modi. His much-touted "Gujarat model" is desired by everyone. For a public, that has seen only major scams as the highlights of 10 years of UPA rule, Mr.Modi's assertive style is a whiff of fresh air. Mr.Modi is not tainted by charges of corruption. His wife/son/daughter/brother, etc. are not part of the government, unlike the Congress' style of dynasty as politics and politics as dynasty .Nasty comments about the Gandhis? So if someone is alleged to be corrupt, asking them to come clean is nasty? That is Mr.Khare's logic? Manmohan as namby-pamby eh? Well, no matter how much spin doctors like Mr.Khare can try to make it sound good, the people know for a fact about the stoic silences of our Prime Minister on various issues. 2G scam? Our PM gratefully acknowledges Mr.Raja's letter where he arbitrarily advances the date of submission. That the Supreme Court cancelled all licenses, isn't that a slap in the face of our "decisive PMO"? I agree that the Prime Minister is personally clean. What use? Facts are facts.
Mr.Khare is right when he asserts "Violence in our daily political discourse is bound to breed violent proclivities in political society".
But my request is, please state facts and don't try to spin issues. The daily debates on late night television is enough to gauge the quality of debates. There is an overflow of loud-mouthed, no-holds-barred rhetoric. Shouting down the other person is the strategy. It is one thing to deplore the state of debates and other to manufacture imagined perceptions and inferences. Mr.Khare has blurred the line.