(Edited Image Courtesy: PIB)

 

Have you ever come across any instance of a Prime Minister describing a departed national icon as “very controversial figure” in obituary?

Jawaharlal Nehru did so on 6th December 1956 while sharing his grief over demise of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. And in this hangs a tale of uneasy relationship between these two leaders – a relationship in which Dr. Ambedkar missed no opportunity to unmask and jab at Mr. Nehru. 

This narrative is relevant as Parliamentarians are currently vying with one another in eulogizing Dr. Ambedkar as chief architect of Indian Constitution and as a prime mover of socio-political reforms.

He had premonition of his death. He had also cautioned the Government against taking the country to dogs!

Before recounting certain punches thrown by Dr. Ambedkar at Nehru, hear what Mr. Nehru stated: “Dr. Ambedkar for many, many years had been a very controversial figure in Indian public affairs, but there can be no doubt about his outstanding quality, his scholarship, and the intensity with which he pursued his convictions, sometimes rather with greater intensity than perhaps required by the particular subject, which sometimes reacted in a contrary way. But he was the symbol of that intense feeling which we must always remember, the intense feeling of the suppressed classes in India who have suffered for ages past under our previous social systems, and it is as well that we recognise this burden that all of us should carry and should always remember.”

 (Sunset for Modi?)

 

The prime mover advantage in political narrative is shifting from Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the opposition parties. 

The shift is set to gather momentum following the BJP’s debacle in Bihar polls that was preceded by drubbing in Delhi from rookie politician Arvind Kejriwal. The election results have delivered a decisive blow to Modi’s waning charisma and credibility. 

Many a citizen would henceforth view with suspicion whatever good initiative that Mr. Modi takes in future. They would suspect it as a part of larger Hindutva agenda.  

Similarly, the Opposition would take credit for anything good that Mr. Modi does in any socio-economic domain. They would say something like this: Modi is doing this because we created public pressure for him to act. He is backtracking because… and so on and so forth. As this process gains momentum in the coming months, Mr. Modi would be seen as a reactive leader and not as a proactive leader. 

Barring sound and fury, he failed to act as a proactive leader on all fronts except his hobbyhorse, Swachh Bharat. And action in this domain has been more theatrical and not holistic. It has hardly changed the ground actuality.  India thus continues to stink.  

When electorate gave BJP the Lok Sabha mandate to govern well, then it was swayed by Mr. Modi’s perceived passion for growth and reforms. The public saw him as a proactive leader who would cut Gordian knot of hurdles to herald Acche Din for all.

He failed to rise to the occasion perhaps because he trusts only very few colleagues, who in turn have created their own cliques of trusted advisors. The bane of Modi regime is the distrust for established institutional framework and outside professional talent.

 Mr. Modi is also indifferent towards well-meaning advice that flows from institutions, analysts and small fries at large.

(  )

Be it the attacks on churches, be it arrogance-inspired land ordinance, be it ghar wapsi (conversion of Christians and Muslims back to Hinduism), be it cow slaughter, be it beef tamasha, be it abusive tongue-lashing by certain BJP leaders, Mr. Modi’s initial response has always be stoic silence. 

 

Take any case and make a Google search. Pop comes the headline that runs on these lines: Modi finally breaks his silence. 

In each case, the Opposition and other opinion leaders goaded PM to break his silence. And he always spoke too late and too little, thereby consolidating his image as reactive leader, who drew comfort from great escape from domestic grind by flying abroad ostensibly to build India’s image.

With this background, consider reactive PM scenario with five hypothetical situations. 

 (Image Courtesy: National Commission for Scheduled Castes)

 

If a Chaiwala (tea seller) can become Prime Minister of the country, what stops a beggar from aspiring for the same coveted post? 

The answer lies in the conspiracy of silence among all political parties on India’s most revolutionary socio-political reform mooted by late V.P. Singh in August 1990. He, as PM, mooted the reform as an add-on to the National Front Government’s decision to implement Mandal Commission Report (MCR). 

The public thus knows Mr. Singh best as provider of 27% reservation of jobs in Central Government and central public enterprises (CPEs) for other backward classes (OBCs) in keeping with MCR.

Very few persons know that he pitched for two vital caste and religion-neutral reforms for the poor as a class without encountering any opposition. He could not implement the two ideas as his Government fell in November 1990 after withdrawal of support by certain parties. 

Mr. Singh’s two crucial forgotten reform proposals are: Reservation of 40% of seats in Parliament and State Assemblies for the poor and fixation of 5-10% jobs quota for poor in the Central domain.   

Even Chief of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Mohan Bhagwat, has not mentioned this unfinished reforms agenda set by Mr. Singh.