What if it was the similar story, the expression (in this case anger) forgot how to express itself!
But, anyway, it was a winning combination, both rare events – Manmohan Singh was speaking and the words he uttered in the Parliament on Friday (August 30) expressed he was angry.
It was just yet another characteristically dull and familiar day of the Indian Parliament in session when Manmohan, uncharacteristic of him, decided to take on the Opposition even if his flat, expressionless face and a flat voice, once again, killed the essence.
Whatever he says has stopped making any difference. Probably he knows it well and so he doesn’t look making efforts to speak regularly. That may be a reason that he speaks so less, until the reactions on his recruited silence (or reticence) become too extreme.
His condition is precarious one should understand and he should be given the benefit of being a weak prime minister with no political base who, in the prevailing circumstances, has been given a fragile set-up to operate with.
Manmohan’s condition as the prime minister of the nation is too dependent on signals from the all powerful Nehru-Gandhi family. In fact, the populism (or the economic imprudence) of the policies forced by the Nehru-Gandhi family has effectively killed the economist in Manmohan Singh.
And the opportunity cost for it has been immense. It has effectively wiped out whatever good Manmohan had earned during decades of his career as an economist and an economist-cum-politician.
From a talking point for economic reforms, he has become the favourite political character of jokes and satires.
That would be a natural causal agent for anger. And when it gets mixed with difficult circumstances like the free, steep fall of Rupee, a declining GDP rate and an economy in mess, something that has been much of his government’s doing where he was forced to remain a mute spectator, it fuels the fire to create the rare flames that emerge as the ‘words of anger’ from Manmohan’s otherwise silent façade.
Okay, he needs to vent it but he cannot blame and target the ‘original’ reasons for his precarious situation so it’s better to dissipate it on the opposition benches that is what he did on Friday.
What if his expressionless face didn’t give anything when he was expressing his ‘great outrage’, what if his flat voice didn’t say anything when he was ‘aggressively hitting back’.
After all, the ‘words of anger’ were there (what if one of the most expressive words used by him was expunged from the Parliament records).
After all, he must be given the benefit of his ‘precarious’ position.
©/IPR: Santosh Chaubey – https://santoshchaubey.wordpress.com/