Tavleen Singh is on the spot again with this column. She wades in directly into her favourite waters - criticising Sonia Gandhi and increasingly Manmohan Singh as well.
And why prissy morality? What has morality to do with inner voices and renunciation? I don't think there were any moral questions involved. No one said it was morally wrong for Sonia Gandhi to become the PM. The main argument was the lack of desirability of having a "foreigner" as PM and the "national shame" which would result. Following the argument closely, no one, including the foreign lady herself, could have then claimed that rejecting the PM post was a morally right thing to do. Historic and saintly - whether justified or not - were the adjectives used. And what has self-effacement to do with morality - I would have though it has much to do with personality. And what if one's opponents calls one invisible and minimum etc? The PM has already indicated what he thinks of that as I mentioned here.
Having got all that business of morality behind, we move on to Bihar, about which the column anyway is all about. We immediately come across something that was long due. The linking of Sonia Gandhi with the dissolution decision. And then Ms Singh feeds us this rumour:
Could it be because of the foreigner issue - Ms Singh was quite vehemently against her becoming the PM. But then she didn't. So that can't be it. Could it be because Ms Singh hates her for being in the position she is just because of family? But she doesn't let that get in the way of meeting Vasundhara Raje and complimenting her style of governing - one could equally well claim that she is what she is today only because of her royal background. Or could it be that Ms Singh has been wrong about the lady more than once and is letting us reap what her wrong predictions have sown - an unrequitable anger?
Look at some instances. One from Sept 1 2002 from her Fifth Column series for Indian Express:
I mean - it must hurt badly. Hell hath no fury etc. But as someone with such a lot of experience and who is not ashamed of flaunting it, Ms Singh could come up with more objective analysis fewer personal attacks and do herself and her readers a favour.
If there is a defining characteristic of the Sonia-Manmohan government it is prissy morality. First, there was all that business about inner voices and renunciation and the evolution of Sonia Gandhi into Santa Sonia in the eyes of an electorate desperate for political heroes.One good thing about 'defining characteristics' is that they can be changed to suit the occasion as it unfolds. Today it is morality, tomorrow it could be something else.
Then, there was the emergence of the most self-effacing prime minister we have ever seen. So self-effacing that his opponents call him ‘invisible’ and ‘common minimum prime minister’.
He responds with a goody-goody smile and more self-effacement. This is what makes what happened in Bihar last week that much more interesting.
And why prissy morality? What has morality to do with inner voices and renunciation? I don't think there were any moral questions involved. No one said it was morally wrong for Sonia Gandhi to become the PM. The main argument was the lack of desirability of having a "foreigner" as PM and the "national shame" which would result. Following the argument closely, no one, including the foreign lady herself, could have then claimed that rejecting the PM post was a morally right thing to do. Historic and saintly - whether justified or not - were the adjectives used. And what has self-effacement to do with morality - I would have though it has much to do with personality. And what if one's opponents calls one invisible and minimum etc? The PM has already indicated what he thinks of that as I mentioned here.
Having got all that business of morality behind, we move on to Bihar, about which the column anyway is all about. We immediately come across something that was long due. The linking of Sonia Gandhi with the dissolution decision. And then Ms Singh feeds us this rumour:
From the day that Bihar threw up a hung assembly there have been rumours that Sonia Gandhi would ensure that Rabri Devi became chief minister again no matter what.This report contradicts the linking but Ms Singh doesn't read The Hindu I suppose. But Ms Singh really reveals herself with this line:
The only good thing is that the garb of morality that Sonia-Manmohan clothed themselves in now lies in tatters. It is sad this happened at the cost of Bihar.Why is it good that the 'garb of morality' is in tatters? How does it help the work of government? Could it be because Ms Singh is against these people for her own private reasons? If not, why is Ms Singh so personally against these two, especially the first that she keeps bringing them up in column after column?
Could it be because of the foreigner issue - Ms Singh was quite vehemently against her becoming the PM. But then she didn't. So that can't be it. Could it be because Ms Singh hates her for being in the position she is just because of family? But she doesn't let that get in the way of meeting Vasundhara Raje and complimenting her style of governing - one could equally well claim that she is what she is today only because of her royal background. Or could it be that Ms Singh has been wrong about the lady more than once and is letting us reap what her wrong predictions have sown - an unrequitable anger?
Look at some instances. One from Sept 1 2002 from her Fifth Column series for Indian Express:
Moreover, as recent polls indicate, Sonia appears to have already become a liability for the Congress. Sick and tired of the BJP’s rabid Hindutva and its greedy, petrol-pump grabbing politicians the Indian voter is showing signs of wanting to return to Congress but then appears before him the image of Prime Minister Sonia and confusion sets in. If the BJP manages to cobble together another government in 2004 it will be almost entirely because of the Sonia factor.Well, many would agree with that last sentence, though not in the intended sense. Then this from Jan 18 2004:
.. enjoy the cow dust hour Soniaji, but if you think a few tours of rural India can make you Prime Minister please think again.
No comments:
Post a Comment