Modi let ego get in the way of a debate with Rahul Gandhi
Prime Minister Narendra Modi began his reply to the Vote of Thanks to the President by invoking the words of Rajiv Gandhi to hand out a sermon to the Congress party now led by his widow and steered by his son. In the course of a largely combative speech, Modi further read out selective quotes of Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi.
.@narendramodi quotes Indira Gandhi to counter attack opposition on Make In India.#ITVideohttps://t.co/6AJj1NyhyJ
— India Today (@IndiaToday) March 3, 2016
Modi sought to portray the present Congress leadership as violating the spirit and advice of its own political ancestry. He even cited the words of Somnath Chatterjee when he was Lok Sabha Speaker. The point Modi made was simple: Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv talked about the necessity of maintaining parliamentary decorum but their words were being ignored by the present leadership and that they were not being truthful to their inheritance.
We have not been able to remove poverty in the last 60 years: @narendramodi in Lok Sabha#ITVideohttps://t.co/4YsOu8awbY
— India Today (@IndiaToday) March 3, 2016
But every quote has a context. Rajiv Gandhi's views on the importance of parliamentary etiquette were articulated only after his government hit a road block in the form of the Bofors scandal. Till that point, his 400 plus majority was sufficient to steamroller past a knocked out opposition - remember the Bharatiya Janata Party had just two members in Lok Sabha. Yet post-April 1987, the sparse opposition benches were enough to force Gandhi to advise the Opposition on good conduct.
Similarly, Nehru too sought cooperation of the opposition after the first chinks in his armoury became visible in 1957. Modi also forgot that Indira Gandhi's statement that the accusation that Indians went around with a begging bowl was compounded when this charge was levelled by people within was made in 1974.
NREGA didn't target the 'real' poor section of the society: @narendramodi in LS#ITVideohttps://t.co/f3Ev5dh9QJ
— India Today (@IndiaToday) March 3, 2016
Modi should know the significance of the year for that was when he first stepped into the tumultuous world of street protests after the Navnirman agitation was started in Gujarat to soon become a nationwide protest leading to imposition of Emergency and eventual electoral rout of Indira Gandhi in 1977. Even her other reference to the biggest crisis facing India at that time - fast rising opposition to development programmes - that Modi referred to, was made in 1968 when she was locked in a bitter battle with the Syndicate in the Congress party and was yet to emerge as the "only man in her government."
Modi may find it discomforting, but many would possibly wonder if he too is plagued by the same self-doubt felt by Nehru downward when they made these observations. After all, none of these statements were recalled by Modi earlier, not even anytime in 2015 when his regime was clearly losing steam.
Yet Modi remained combative especially in his barbs directed at Rahul Gandhi. The balance in what was once a David versus Goliath battle has altered somewhat and the two are now almost at level with Modi having just a narrow advantage owing to his position and experience. Evidently, the "suit-boot ki sarkar" has stung and now the "fair and lovely" comment hurts.
Here #RahulGandhi describes @narendramodi?'s 'Fair & Lovely' scheme #ITVideo #ModiBudgetTest @OfficeOfRGhttps://t.co/CTJWCKLyoS
— India Today (@IndiaToday) March 2, 2016
'I am not from RSS, I make mistakes, I don't know everything'@OfficeOfRG #RahulGandhi #ITVideo #ModiBudgetTesthttps://t.co/n2TTtwcI4q
— India Today (@IndiaToday) March 2, 2016
But this is a battle that Modi began - the attack against the Gandhis was always more personal than political.
Even in Lok Sabha on Thursday, Modi accused the mother-son duo of not providing "more talented" young MPs with opportunities to speak in the House and suffering form inferiority complex. True Sonia Gandhi embarked on a personalised campaign against Modi with her "maut ke saudagar" barb in 2007, but the conflict could have been spared the personal element by Modi subsequently.
The problem with beleaguered leaders, and Modi is not the only one at that, is they wish Parliament to run but on their terms. They attempt to reach out to the Opposition only after the latter sees an opening in the ruling party's armour. When Modi could have mended ties, he wished to rub in the humiliating defeat. Even on Thursday, he did not lose the chance of making snide comments at the poor strength of the Congress bench.
A recurring characteristic of Modi is that he remains in the grip of a victim syndrome. He makes a virtue out of criticism levelled by opponents and reads conspiracy into every statement which doesn't support him to the fullest. Criticism for his failures or being complicit in events he should not have been is presented as a design to ground grandiose plans for India. He referred to being "used to criticism for the last 14 years". Yet he also seeks assistance in running Parliament effectively.
For a leader who has often acted in an authoritarian way, narrating the famous Stalin-Khruschev anecdote only enabled him to play to gallery of the already converted and such tactics do not draw new supporters. The Congress and its leadership can be faulted on several issues but criticism can be more in depth and not limited to taking pot-shots and histrionics.
The contest over "whose scheme is it anyway" has been a matter of contention between the NDA and UPA. Modi said that he continued with UPA's social sector schemes because they failed to deliver while the Congress says that Modi is claiming credit for achievements made under the UPA regime. Modi again referred the MGNREGA as a monument of UPA's failures but in a subdued and explanatory tone. Modi listed his own schemes too but stayed clear of critique of these. For instance, he played the tom-tom to draw attention to toilets built but chose not address concerns about their maintenance.
That after more than an hour of digs at the Congress he sought their cooperation is reflective of the perpetual contestation between Modi the politician and Modi the PM. This was another parliamentary debate where the chief executive could have asked the politician in him to make way. Another chance to change the nature of the political narrative has thus been lost. The PM in him must advise the alter ego not to take everything to heart - dil pe mat le yaar!