By Valson Thampu

The mark of a consummate speaker is the impression he creates in the listener that he is speaking who he is. He is not belching and bellowing words, but breathing his convictions.

There were moments when I began to feel that I was not listening to the policy speech of a Prime Minister, but to the declamation of a protagonist in an agora.

The key to understanding this unforgettable speech is not its sarcasm, which could not be missed. The key to its essence is Modi’s repeated insistence that he was playing on the ground set by the Opposition, the Congress in particular. The material solidity of the speech was derived, therefore, from a comparison invidious to UPA -2.

It was not this, however, that gripped me. Rhetoric is for the masses. The PM was not, in this instance, addressing a roiling, applauding, adoring sea of humanity as is his wont. He was addressing Parliamentarians, and his accent needs to be viewed as such.

I was gripped by the pattern in the fire of the PM’s speech. Minute after minute, sentence after sentence, that pattern emerged like sun on the morning horizon.

Consider, by way of illustrative comparison, the undying magic of Abraham Lincoln’s “A house divided against itself cannot stand” (Gettysburg) or John F. Kennedy’s, “Ask not what America can do for you…” (Inauguration) or Nehru’s “Long ago we made a tryst with destiny…” (Eve of Independence). They too hold us spell-bound, but in a different way.

Those speeches enthrall us with what’s enduring. They are instinct with something that time will not bedim. They have their equilibrium within themselves, as it were. Rhetoric of attack is not their traction. The speakers do not derive their inspiration from their attitude towards particular persons or groups, but from universal principles and sentiments. So they continue to appeal.

Now, assume for the sake of argument, that Congress MPs were absent from the Parliament for the duration of the PM’s address. It is a plausible to suggest that the PM’s speech would have lacked vigour and sarcasm. This is not to take anything away from the thoroughness with which the PM handled all relevant issues and the conviction that electrified his words. It is, instead, to read in-between and a trifle beyond his words, which the PM himself, unlike his over-zealous fans, may not mind.

The reason for my hope in this regard is that Modi is a perfectionist. He is a sturdy learner, which is his core strength. Good learners have to be particularly mindful of what they learn.

What gripped me was a growing worry. If you play back the speech, you will see the PM asserting repeatedly that he is playing on the ground set up by the Opposition. I comment on this, as it appears that the PM was not as conscious as he could have been of its implication. This may lend itself to two contrary explanations: (a) an unconscious pattern was working itself out or (b) he was aware of the pattern, but went along, nonetheless, for rhetorical gains. I assume the first to be case. Hence the following-
I have to bank a little on philosophy at this stage. German idealistic philosophy posited the contrast between ‘ground’ and ‘existence’. Martin Heidegger, much later, put is slightly differently as the contrast between Being and being. “Being” is the ground of “being”. The latter comes into existence in order to express something new of the Being. There is a connection –one of dependence- between ‘ground’ and ‘existence’. Ground is the condition for what exists, though the latter is different from the former. So, existence is contingent on ground, even as it remains free. (Sorry about all this; but this could help! I couldn’t have put it any simpler).
The issue is this. The time has come for Modi as Prime Minister to decide if he will retain UPA-2 (in particular, the Congress) as the “ground” of his political existence, or being. Won’t he set himself free from this ground? For the time being, the contrast with the previous regime may afford an advantage.

But this advantage hides a perilous danger. It is like the Brazilian football team comparing itself to a team from Vanuatu to its advantage. Surely, it will come off better for the comparison. At the same time, the comparison also hides a self-insult. Comparison is between similar categories. If I compare myself to a thief, to project myself in a better light, I put myself in the same category. I can only claim to be “a better thief”. That does not mean that I am an honest person who merits your trust.

This is a serious matter. What is of crucial importance for our collective destiny is whether or not the PM has a positive and proactive vision that, irrespective of UPA or PPA, will take the country forward. He needs to enunciate this urgently and persuasively to his own cabinet colleague and party cadre. UPA too started off with good intentions but floundered, precisely for not doing this. It is a reality that Modi can overlook only to his own peril.

The shelf-life of hate is brief. Sarcasm attains surfeit sooner than later. For a while, it appeals. Banking on this long-term is like fixing a curtain of darkness in the east against sunrise. It will not hold.

Those of us who have been following with admiration every word the PM has spoken, every step he has taken, are keen to see an early shift in gears. India thirsts to be inspired. We have had spells of gloom and drift long enough. This is to Modi’s advantage. He does not have to overwhelm the people with verbal vehemence. He only has to enunciate an inclusive, proactive vison which can harness the awesome energies and talents of our people and honors our greatness and uniqueness as a people.

It is urgent and imperative to unfold an enlarged paradigm for development. It is understandable that for a while the PM stayed stuck with development only in its monetary and material dimension. India is far more than a market, just as we are more than stomachs.

The eagerness to ensure the availability and enhancement of the material base of life –absolutely necessary and laudable- needs to be now complemented with the development of our national character. We must become not only better fed, clothed and housed, but also developed as better human beings. The scope and meaning of freedom depend on our development as human beings. If this is neglected, people could exercise their freedom as a license to sabotage freedom itself. Freedom is, after all, the capacity to act according to one’s own nature. It is of crucial importance, therefore, what that ‘nature’ comes to mean.

As a lifelong educator, it is my earnest wish that the Prime Minister assume charge of the Ministry of Human Resource Development. I have nothing against Prakash Javdekar. I count him among the best in the cabinet. Even so, the PM must handle MHRD as a statement of priority, or the importance that his government attaches to the “human” part of our development.

If anyone can do this, it’s the PM. Will he do it? Well, for the sake of all of us and for the generations that come after us, let us hope he does.

(Valson Thampu is former principal of St Stephen’s College, Delhi)