There is hope for the country yet

It was a depressing debate for more reasons than one and when one wished for the agony to end quickly came the two minute speech from a young parliamentarian representing a state that has been the cause of many international debates. It roused the nation and when one remembers that earlier another young man broke rank from the run of the mill politicians, one could safely predict that the future is not bleak. 

For much part of the two days the Lok Sabha was fathoming new depths of our political culture. There were speeches that were clearly meant for the electorate in anticipation of the fall of government and early polls and then there were speeches that spewed venom and hatred. There were also attempts to mislead the house and the people by blatantly resorting to deliberate misinterpretation of the nuclear agreement with USA. In fact there was much to despair for.

The Leader of the Opposition, Lal Krishna Advani chose to delve more into the issue of the transfer of land in Kashmir to the Amarnath Shrine Board and the rising prices its deputy leader V.K.Malhotra began with the irrelevant and suggestive rather than substance. Meanwhile its Muslim face in Shah Nawaz could not help but be ludicrous for much of the time and then end up being what he has been in BJP, the Muslim face. The BSP too used the occasion to position itself for the next general election and instead of educating us on the nuclear agreement was more focused on elevating its chief Mayawati to the office of the Prime Minister.

From the treasury benches the speakers were hardly better. There was much to explain and it was the call of the ruling alliance to clear the air of misunderstandings and explain how the agreement did not limit the country’s sovereignty and that it expanded its frontiers on the energy front. The Foreign Minister threw some light and one wondered why these things could not have been publicly stated for the benefit of the people. The rest of the speakers remained engrossed in the politics of the issue and spent much of the time in accusations and recriminations.

It was in this cynical house that Rahul Gandhi rose to speak. Understandably there were interruptions from the other side that has repeatedly demonstrated in parliament its contempt for democracy by disrupting in the past speeches from the prime Minister. For those who believe that politics is all about denigrating the opponent to promote yourself Rahul Gandhi’s speech was refreshing and indicated what a section of the younger generation is aspiring for.

Rahul Gandhi did not get into the semantics of the nuclear agreement but linked it with the challenge of eradicating poverty. He pin pointed, by citing examples he personally encountered, the problem and suggested that energy was the solution. He reminded the house that his late father in the eighties had sought to realize his vision of India in the 21^st century by laying emphasis on information technology and communication. Many a cynics had even then mocked at the vision but the march that the country has made in these fields stands testimony to the courage and vision of his father.

It would be naďve to suggest that there was no politics in his speech. The fact that he used the occasion to remind the house of the pioneering steps taken by his father was a gentle reminder that just as the opposition, consisting of roughly the same alliance as today, was wrong in assessing the impact of nuclear agreement today as it was in the years gone by. Even more skillful and civil was the manner in which he reminded the BJP of former Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee’s recognition of the need for nuclear energy and thus the initial steps taken by him. In doing so he not only raised his own stature by acknowledging the contribution of BJP’s stalwart politician’s contribution to the same over which Dr. Manmohan Singh had staked the survival of his government. By now those in the BJP were too confused to make up their mind as to heckle the young man as has been their wont or to applaud him.

However what followed was what caught the imagination of the younger generation. He exhorted the house to change its mind set and stop worrying how the world will impact India. It was time for a country has seventy per cent of its population in the younger age bracket to start thinking how it was going to impact the world. This was a signal of an India coming of age, a signal to the young that it was time to express their confidence without diffidence and carry the confidence of the IT sector in other fields as well.

In the end it was a speech that could mark a beginning of a new era where confrontation with the opponents is not the most important preoccupation of a politician. It would be far fetched to expect those who objected to his mentioning the name Kalawati in his speech on the ground that it rhymed with the name of the supreme of the BSP to also mellow and begin thinking in terms of the nation. But what it can and probably would do is that it will bring a lot more younger people out of their cocoon created because of the disenchantment with politicians.

The second speech that indicates that the question mark over political morality and ethics notwithstanding there is still hope came in extremely unusual circumstances. The house had reconvened after the adjournment during which passions were inflamed over the bribery issue. Clearly the opposition did not want the house to proceed till the scandalous issue had been dealt with. How justified it was, is a matter of opinion and debate but what by then appeared certain was that the government was going to survive. At least that is what was generally perceived.

The fact of the matter is that when Omar Abdullah of National Conference from Jammu and Kashmir and with only two votes in the house, the Lok Sabha had virtually become the tower of Babel. Mehbooba from the same state’s PDP had earlier had made a vain effort to put her point across in the two minutes allotted to her. Amidst that noise Omar rose and passionately caught the attention of those who cared to listen with the words that he was a Muslim and an Indian and that he did not see any distinction between the two. He went on to explain he did not think the nuclear agreement was against Muslims or India and how fighting poverty the common enemy was important. He went on to explain the reason for voting with the UPA and publicly apologized for not resigning when the Gujarat riots took from the Vajpayee ministry. It was a rare act of courage that went down very well before he lamented the fact that the opposition was not allowing the voice of the smaller parties from being heard. Finally, he defended the Kashmiris over the Amarnath row by making it clear that it was only about the land and not religious freedom. He reminded that this yatra had been going on with the support of the Kashmiris for more than a century now.

The best part of his speech was that the two minutes that he was given were not enough to consult his notes. In the end he was left speaking extempore and as it turned out, from the heart. For the first time a Kashmiri leader was making a speech which was sincerely appreciated both in the valley as well as in Delhi. The heart that beats in the valley is the same that throbs in Delhi and that is a great sign for the future.

These two speeches suggest in no uncertain terms that the future belongs neither to those who would ride the rath of religion to power or to those who have no vision but the platform of caste. The future of the country lies secure in the hands and hearts of a generation that is uncluttered and is not afraid of charting an untrod path.