Rahul, Namo debate sequentially

You don’t say!
Darius Nakhoonwala

It can only happen in India where two prime ministerial candidates debate with each other but, sequentially instead of simultaneously. So last week, we had Rahul Gandhi firing on all cylinders on Friday. On Sunday it was Narendra Modi’s turn to rebut.

 

The edit writers were delighted, of course. They didn’t have to cast about for topics over the weekend. Lucky fellows because between now and the day campaigning ends, there will be many other such occasions for focus-less and lazy take-note edits.

 

But before we go on to what they said, I must ask if the Telegraph has decided not to comment on either. Not only does the paper seem asleep most of the time, all too often doesn’t take note at all.

 

Anyway, The Times of India was first off the mark on Rahul Gandhi and this is what it had to say, make what you will of it because it didn’t deal with the substance of his speech. “..Politics is an unpredictable game. A hunger to win can do magic. It’s alright if Rahul isn`t hungry. It’s alright to be a lotus-eater. That’s a respectable path to enlightenment. But if there’s no fire in his belly to become Congress’s PM candidate, what does this say about how he would perform as India’s PM?” 

 

On Narendra Modi’s speech it had this to say: “His vision statement is good in parts, especially in relation to economic visions articulated by other political parties… However, wanting to run a network of bullet trains or build a national agricultural market is nothing more than using symbols to represent Modi. It won't make a difference to most Indians…” Then came the unkindest cut: “It is difficult to see why Modi's speech should not be read as a mere variant of UPA's approach...promise to create a national agricultural market sounds like a continuation of UPA.” Ouch! 

 

“In similar vein, suggestions on agriculture, infrastructure and inflation, all skirt the one issue that is taboo among Indian politicians. Governments and regulators are reluctant to let price serve as a signal for people to make decisions. Consequently farmers are burdened by debt, power companies allow assets to idle, banks worry about bad loans and households hoard gold. The vision, as articulated by Modi, gives little sense of how Indians' most pressing problems will ever get resolved, including acquiring land to expand cities.”  

 

The Indian Express was more charitable to Gandhi Jr. “If there was one overriding theme… it was his emphasis on empowering processes and structural solutions, as opposed to the promotion of personality-centric or simplistic answers.” The paper briefly listed Rahul’s solutions and had stuck two little pins into his ribs: “…his lament about the decline of the legislature does not ring entirely sincere, given that as an MP since 2004, he has shown little enthusiasm or conscientiousness towards his own parliamentary responsibilities… reform from below must be accompanied by change at the top..”

 

How mean!

 

The paper was kinder to Modi but focus-less like the ToI. “…he packed in some big ideas and messages, perhaps in a bid to make up for their absence in the party’s economic resolution on Saturday…spoke of how the story of rising regional aspirations must not be told as one of a Centre under siege. …urged a recasting of the urbanisation challenge as an opportunity…. While his idea of a bullet train network… may not seem doable, Modi is right in demanding that India’s political class should start thinking big about its cities…” blah, blah, blah.

 

Surprisingly, The Hindu was nice to both. It called Rahul’s speech “thoughtful and combative” and about Modi it said he was “showing a readiness to appear to move away from a divisive communal politics.” Wah!

 

But the tone made all the difference. For Rahul there was admiration. “…Rahul Gandhi combined vision with heart… seamlessly connecting many strands of thought, but above all, for trying to establish the Congress as an idea indistinguishable from the idea of India” and so on.

 

But for Modi there was only scepticism. “There was no space for controversial issues such as minority rights and the building of a Ram temple at Ayodhya…instead, Mr. Modi came up with a “rainbow strategy” of strengthening cultural and familial values, agricultural-rural development, women’s empowerment and security, environmental protection, youth power, democracy, and knowledge and skill development. Had the same strategy been spelt out by the Congress’s Rahul Gandhi, no one would have batted an eyelid…Mr. Modi realises, he would not be able to bridge the seats deficit after the Lok Sabha election.”

 

The Pioneer did the opposite thing, focussing on the Congress’s refusal to name Rahul as the PM candidate. It wondered “…whether he prefers to merely talk without accepting accountability for actions… wants to shield Mr Gandhi from the humiliation.”

 

On Modi, it almost broke into song. “Sunday’s address is noteworthy for the broad roadmap that he laid out for the all-round development of the country in case the BJP came to power after the Lok Sabha election” and ended by saying “…his Sunday speech was one of genuine substance.”

 

Astonishingly, the Hindustan Times took a similar line to The Pioneer but less forthrightly. “This is being hailed in some quarters as a masterstroke, or at the very least, a clever move … because, the argument goes, keeping Rahul out of the firing line of BJP candidate Narendra Modi will insulate him personally to some extent from the effects of any disaster at the hustings.”

 

Brilliant. You say it without endorsing it.

 

Instead it raised a mild objection. “All this may be a passable damage-limitation exercise, but there are some problems with the logic behind the party’s move... it speaks of a mindset that is defensive in the extreme, the mentality of an outfit in disarray, one that almost wants its misery in government to end.” Ouch again.

 

About Modi, it had this to say. “It was one of the more memorable political speeches so far from any politician in the fray for 2014. Narendra Modi’s speech at the concluding day of the BJP national council in the Capital had the characteristic flourishes expected from the party’s prime ministerial candidate…The criticism against Mr Modi so far has been that he has not come up with any substantial election issue. This time he did.”

Such articles are only possible because of your support. Help the Hoot. The Hoot is an independent initiative of the Media Foundation and requires funds for independent media monitoring. Please support us. Every rupee helps.