6 6 august 2018F
rom the moment it
became clear that there was no
immediate threat to narendra modi,
the no-confidence motion in the
Lok Sabha became a routine exercise,
another occasion for all the stalwarts
to deliver a speech to a tV audience. I
don’t believe that there was ever any
danger of the Government being
defeated on the floor of the house.
the hype on tV bore little connection
with the bored, dismayed expressions
of mPs as they rescheduled their
Friday travel plans to abide by the
three-line whip of their parties.
If there was any interest in the
proceedings of the Lok Sabha on
July 20th, it was centred on the
performance of Congress President
rahul Gandhi. he was to lead his par-
ty’s charge against the Prime minister,
and all eyes were on this. Both modi
bhakts and modi baiters were anxious
to see him in action because, notwith-
standing its steep decline over the
past four years, the Congress still
has a brand image and the Gandhis
are the party’s proprietors. the no-
confidence motion ended up being
a trust vote on the newest Gandhi to
assume charge of the family firm.
I don’t think that rahul performed
exceptionally well. Yes, he oozed
self-confidence and was combative
in a street fighter sort of way. But
his speech was more suited for a
modest-sized election meeting than a
Lok Sabha debate. the measured
arguments that are expected of
parliamentary debates were replaced
by shrill assertions that suggested an
insufficient grasp over governance.
his speech was at best cocky and the
curious finale made it slightly bizarre.
rahul ensured that his speech would
be noticed and commented upon.
But he didn’t seem to care if the final
verdict was favourable or otherwise.
he put a premium on noticeability.
It is one thing to pronounce an
individual judgment on the Congress
president’s performance. to know the
national reaction to it is more difficult.
the social media is of absolutely no
help since, of late, it has been taken
over by journalists, academics, activists
and other members of the chattering
classes. others seem to lack the
vocabulary to express their thoughts
cogently—although they may
be far more effective in verbal
communication.
Consequently, the responses
followed a set pattern. the journalists
and academics, an overwhelming
majority of whom equate narendra
modi to the Black Death, thought that
rahul had gone past the apprentice
stage and was now poised to assume
a leadership mantle. they were over-
joyed that rahul’s pre-determined
hug of the Prime minister had a major
element of surprise and was probably
unique in the annals of parliamentary
history. now, they gloated—on social
media and in the next morning’s
newspapers—modi has at last been
confronted with a real challenger.
this flood of compliments from
modi-haters who are desperate for a
general to lead them into a famous
victory in 2019 must have played an
important role in ensuring the
subsequent decision of the newly-appointed Congress Working
Committee to name him as the party’s
candidate for modi’s job. It was an
audacious decision, since it assumed
that the Congress would do well
enough to claim the top post in 2019
and that rahul’s face on election
posters would ensure the Lok Sabha
numbers. And it was almost entirely
based on the supposed appreciation
of rahul’s performance in the no-
confidence debate.
A more rounded understanding of
the speech’s impact is keenly awaited.
however, a Times of India online
poll—which I don’t entirely discount
because it is difficult to attach a
political label to that publishing
house—did suggest that popular
appreciation of rahul’s insolent hug
of the Prime minister—which modi
was subsequently to mock as a plea to
vacate the seat—was limited to just
30 per cent or so of the respondents.
most english newspapers conveyed
the opposite conclusion.
how a speech is received by a wider
public, many of whom stayed up late
to hear the Prime minister’s post-
pm reply, is difficult to fathom. In 1996,
journalists were happily celebrating
the fall of the 13-day Government led
by Atal Bihari Vajpayee. What took
them a long time to appreciate was
the profound impact Vajpayee’s
resignation speech had on popular
thinking. It made Vajpayee a house-
hold name and certainly contributed
to the BJP’s sharp rise in seats in 1998.
In 2014, rahul was faced with
the embarrassment of his disastrous
interview with Arnab Goswami.
this time, he hasn’t quite failed
the test. he passed, but it was a 2:
performance. If India wants a plodder
with a sense of entitlement at the top,
it will elect him. nopen diary
Swapan Dasgupta