Today's news conference of the PM was like a guided tour. There were no incisive questions asked. PM chose to blabber away questions on Naxals, Aksai Chin- PoK, caste census and the likes. The only honest admission was that the Government could have performed better. With the prices sky rocketing and the FM unmindful of it, the economist PM is still hopeful of getting the inflation under control by December. (Note: He has not mentioned the year.) He did not bring in justifications for his prediction of 8.5% growth this fiscal, whereas he chose not give any specific numbers for the inflation.
He echoed the general view of the public that corruption is the problem with our nation, but treaded the traditional politicians' path of rubbishing evident corruption in Telecom 2G case. He said that Raja had given his explanation in the public and also the issue was discussed in the Parliament. Well, he added that Raja had just followed TRAI guidelines and had implemented the prevailing policy, whereas the fact is that the TRAI guidelines of "let the market decide the price" have been flaunted without a business justification. Mr. Honesty! you've lost your most boasted ground here.
While welcoming the differences of opinion in the Cabinet as a mark of thriving democracy, Dr.Singh chose to display the democratic principle by contradicting his own Foreign affairs minister. Krishna was buoyant of a growing trust between the neighbours, but Dr.Singh told that there was a trust deficit between the neighbours. On a question of taking back PoK and Aksai-Chin , the PM said that talks have not come to that level of getting to solutions. So, keep jaw-jaw and when the jaw pains take rest and start again!!!
There was a stupid question on whose advise was more suitable for him, Sonia Gandhi or Mrs. Gursharan Kaur. PM could have rubbished this question and asked for something on important issues, but he chose to answer that saying advises from both are valuable as they both advise on different issues. One is political Boss he could not think of relegating down, and the other is provider of his rozi roti whom he could not afford to lose. He also reiterated that there was not an iota of difference between him and Sonia. Could he have a difference and continue as PM? But was this question necessary in his first national press conference where there are more serious issues to be discussed? Or did the media think this is more important than any burning national issues?
He said that the party was not undermining him, on the same vein he said that he was willing to step down if the party chooses a suitable person for his job (read Rahul Gandhi aka Raul Vinci). He also reiterated that Rahul was qualified enough to hold a post in the Union Cabinet. That was true in letter and spirit. We have Alagiri holding a Cabinet post and absconding from Parliament for the entire session, whose only qualification is that he is his M.K's son. Comparing to such colleagues, his preference to Rahul is justifiable!!
He has said that the Naxalism was not under estimated by him or his Government. But then, Mr.PM, why so many policemen have been sacrificed at altar of naxals, when this could have been nipped in the bud? He said that he has been saying for the past three years that Naxalism remains the biggest internal security challenge facing our country. Well, have you taken any actions to root that out Mr.PM? Have you atleast got a person who could war-war instead of jaw-jaw in the war field? The limited mandate and the like jargons would not suffice to fight the terror your Government version 1 allowed to grow and version 2 lurches in fighting.
He treaded the expected line of procrastination in the Afzal Guru case. Let the law of the land take its own course. This is none different from his former boss Narasimha Rao's near inertia and allowing problems to solve by themselves in any way. The Parliament attack was an attack on the core of Indian democracy. But we'd still consider the guilty in that case on par with other rogues and rascals waiting the gallows. Are you trying to emphasize equality atleast on this front, Mr PM?
On Telengana, he said that there was no agreement to create new states. Then why did your Home Minister promise a separate state then back tracked? Was it a ploy to stop KCR from becoming another Potti Sriramulu? Did your Government lie to get KCR to end his fast?
The journalists from Tamilnadu chose to keep silent on the state issues and issues related to the state's sentiments. No question on Sethu Samudram. No question on the pitiful status of SriLankan Tamils, while Rajapakse has strengthened his hold in that country. Rajapakse is known for his anti-Tamil agenda. There are conflicting reports about the status of the internally displaced people. But we're keeping mum. The state leadership has nothing to gain from the SriLankan tamil issue now as there is no imminent election in the state. But you too journalists?
Well, it was a mandatory exercise to reiterate that the PM is the de-jure boss of the Government to ensure smooth sailing of the workings of the de-facto boss. That was done as planned without a hitch. Seems that the center has taken lessons from the alliance partner M.K of TN in conducting guided press conferences. Well learning for the ruling lot, but the people are still suffering.... well, who cares as long as they vote whenever they are told to?
Manmohan Singh is a man of honesty and that was why he was chosen to lead UPA Government, overlooking all other political stalwarts in the Congress. We have an old saying about honesty. “Integrity is telling myself the truth. And honesty is telling the truth to other people.” Manmohan Singh is an honest man. No one would dispute that. But is he a man of integrity? Can he give the same answers to his conscience?
Manmohan Singh is a man of honesty and that was why he was chosen to lead UPA Government, overlooking all other political stalwarts in the Congress. We have an old saying about honesty. “Integrity is telling myself the truth. And honesty is telling the truth to other people.” Manmohan Singh is an honest man. No one would dispute that. But is he a man of integrity? Can he give the same answers to his conscience?
