The debate that wasn't

The spur-of-the-moment exercise we saw on August 15 was not even a patch on what could pass as real debate

Shreekant Sambrani

“Lal Quila vs Lalan College” has admittedly a nice alliterative ring to it.  That is how some of the media chose to anticipate the marquee event of India’s 67 th Independence Day on August 15.  Lal Quila is the traditional location for flag-hoisting followed by incumbent prime minister’s address to the nation.  Lalan College in Bhuj, Gujarat, was where the state’s feisty chief minister Narendra Modi, the front-runner by a mile for the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) prime ministerial candidate in next year’s general elections, unfurled the flag.  He had assiduously promoted his speech as an answer to the prime minister’s address, implying in no uncertain terms that his would be a positive speech, compared to the prime minister’s routine rant.
 

That got plenty of early negative comment from the various Congress spokespersons, but more importantly, a very large national audience for Mr Modi on a symbolically crucial day.  The end result, though, was not what it was cranked out to be: the outlining of an alternative roadmap.  Scoring debating points in passing is not quite the same as a serious debate.

To be sure, if this were to be a “beauty contest,” as the American presidential debates are sometimes called, there would be no question as to the winner: Mr Modi on all counts, body language, countenance, expression, command over language and some select specifics, and a sense of purpose.  But then that is stating the obvious.  Even his worst critics – that would include all of the Congress party and most English media pundits – would concede, however reluctantly, that there is no match for Mr Modi on these qualities in any party in India today.  His native shrewdness – some call it slyness – and in-your-face attitude may not gel with the commentariat, but goes down well with the large crowds he invariably draws.

Dr Manmohan Singh, never a public speaker of any repute, was way below his own normal low standard in his latest address. I have watched all addresses since Rajiv Gandhi’s speech in 1985 and I say without fear of contradiction that this was the worst of the lot in nearly three decades. That includes comparison with one speech wonders such as V P Singh, Deve Gowda and I K Gujral. Gandhi had a smiling and confident expression even when he grappled with mounting charges of corruption and struggled with his words. Narasimha Rao held your attention by his seemingly sagacious words delivered with due deliberation befitting a scholar.  Atal Bihari Vajpayee held you spell-bound even through his long pauses by his unparalleled oratory.  

Dr Singh had none of these qualities, but at least there was a spring in his step that would be the envy of many a younger person.  This last time, though, we saw a visibly stooped man, with uncertain steps, and unable or unwilling to look the camera in the eye, giving the distinct impression that he would rather be in his study.  That did not inspire any confidence in a nation of 1.25 billion desperately low on self-esteem and despairing of the future.

Mr Modi was quick to seize on this and went almost hammer and tongs at it for the first half of his speech.  That struck many, including his party’s senior leader Lal Krishna Advani as not quite appropriate.  They said that Independence Day was not an occasion for such criticism.  It was time for remembering sacrifices and displaying solidarity to the world.

That is not what a true believer in democratic governance would agree with. Patriotic fervour can be displayed with flag-hoisting, parades and other such rites. But it need not and cannot extend to wrapping the incumbents of any office, however high and mighty, into the national flag and placing them above criticism.

If Independence Day is to recall what it meant to us, it is also a time to examine whether we are really free. And that inevitable means a critical and not a sycophantic review of achievements of the political dispensation of the day. To suspend this is to negate the true meaning observing the anniversary of independence. So Mr Modi did not violate the front foot rule in cricketing terminology in this third umpire’s view.  He exercised his democratic right; whether he did it in too shrill a manner is a matter of judgment.

Dr Singh’s address for the most part was a litany of achievements of his nine years in power. It included all the usual suspects: high growth, reduced poverty, higher agricultural growth, improved entitlements to information, education and employment through legislation, and so on. It was doubtless selective, which Mr Modi was quick to point out in what was in effect his rejoinder.  But the greater sin in the prime minister’s speech was not of these omissions but a glaring one of commission. Even though he did not use the words, the clear message to the nation was that you have never had it so good. That is so not true except for the nominal per capita income. The numerous factors that have led Indians to despair and think of gloom and doom under the present regime needs a more detailed exposition. Suffice it to say that the average Indian has not felt this low in over two decades, possibly even longer.

Mr Modi dwelt on the evil constellations of mounting corruption, crushing inflation, falling growth and resultant decline of the rupee. That was valid. But then he changed gears and decided to challenge the prime minister to a competition on development: what India has done and what Gujarat has done. That was done almost in a manner of a wrestler challenging all comers in an aakhara! But for the solemnity of the occasion, it would have to be termed almost comical.

Mr Modi had made a valid point that the present food security bill was not comprehensive in that it did not take into consideration the diversity of approaches that many states had successfully used. Now by reducing the overall development debate to Gujarat vs India, he had committed the same offence. That is what made the ball not hit the wicket.

As we have seen in recent American elections, debates between candidates serve extremely useful purpose. But they have to be carefully planned, with select topics and defined ground rules, to be effective. The spur-of-the-moment exercise of the kind we witnessed on August 15 was not even a patch on what could pass as real debate.

The government has displayed a rare reverse Midas touch lately. Its announcement of encouraging foreign direct investment was followed in a day by the withdrawal of two major steel projects in two states collectively worth over $ 12 billion. Its achievement in winning the BJP’s support for greater foreign investment in insurance was followed immediately by the announcement that Aviva was about to divest its stake. And the cruellest cut of all, the launching of the nuclear-powered submarine Arihant and indigenously made aircraft carrier Vikrant was followed by the loss of recently refitted kilo class submarine Sindhu Rakshak due to explosions with 18 hands on board.

So in the words of the nineteenth century poet Thomas Hood, Dr Singh may well have lamented,    

Even God’s providence    
Seeming estranged    

to which Mr Modi would have responded that the prime minister’s fate was more like that of Mark Antony, who in the words of Shakespeare said,    

I have liv’d in such dishonour that the gods    
Detest my baseness.

That’s the kind of hyperbole that passed for debate this Independence Day in India.