There seems to be an apparent consensus among the articulate to focus on rabble rousing themes. Nation-building dialogue requires more than being catchy
By the time this column appears in print, a gush of commentaries on the Independence Day speech of Prime Minister Narendra Modi (duly clipped by the attention to the demise of Atal Bihari Vajpayee) would likely be on wane. A revisit may be useful. August 15, speech from the Red Fort, has a unique position. It is used to project the Government’s plans, work-in-progress and achievements. Sometimes it is peppered with rhetoric, demagoguery, exhortations or projecting a moral high ground. It has also been used on occasions to announce measures which the Prime Minister considers expedient. Anyone who makes it to the position of a Prime Minister has probably earned this prerogative. Of all Prime Ministers this country has had, only one did not make it to such an event.
Concurrently, as the breadth and depth of the media grew, even before the Prime Minister reached his next appointment after the speech, panels on television channels are on it to do a critique of what he said or did not say, his intentions or what he should have said or the worthiness of his statements — the list is endless. Some anchors do it with wisdom and moderation, others use it to canvas their own political biases. Figuring on these panels is an outcome of what the channel considers a worthwhile investment to boost its TRP. Nevertheless, they do impact a narrative on where the nation is.
The enunciation from the ramparts and the commentary which follows may be termed as the Independence Day dialogue. This is a significant input to the socio-political narrative of the nation. This year’s Independence Day speech, like all other years, followed the President’s Address which came the preceding evening. The Prime Minister made a reference to it establishing a continuity. This was a methodical contribution. All discussions, noted Prime Minister’s exquisite use of language, the use of poetry and idiom, underplay of statistical jargonaise. The Prime Minister’s penchant in public communication is widely acknowledged. The gift of this ability produces huge largesse.
The spokesman for a national party — with acknowledged distaste for the Prime Minister — flagged this ability, at public speaking, as a great risky factor. This was neither necessary nor a contribution to the dialogue. In case of this Party, their love for denigrating the present Prime Minister usually follows use of denigrating words. The cause for denigration is then stated by them, later. Perhaps this Party does not realise that in this manner they are only building the image of the person they wish to denigrate. However, it should be acknowledged that like any other entity they have the right to their own stupidity. The approach of articulating without prejudice has certain prerequisites. One of them is it should ride honesty. The second is, it should be, to the extent possible, non-judgemental.
More to the point, as the Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s speech does set a national agenda, the ‘omissions’ become as potent as the statements. Education, as a topic was painfully conspicuous by its absence. There was probably only one sentence on it. This, one hopes, was an ‘inadvertent’ omission and not a lapse. It is another matter that even in the overall schema of this Government, educational policy and reform are not exactly its bright spot. The National Higher Education Commission Bill coming in the last year of its existence is yet to be tabled in Parliament. It is believed that the Education Minister has issued an informal Writ to autonomous institutions of excellence to the effect that while reconstituting their boards, names should not be repeated. It is another matter that same name can occur on more than one board of such institutions. The chairmen of various boards in their usual propensity to please, thus, carry forward the ‘Writ of autonomy’. Perhaps, the Education Minister can be forgiven for his lack of experience, if not naivety.
The yearly forex spend on education (2017-18) is estimated to be $2.8 billion. It is an indicator of the worth, those who can afford and attribute to our educational systems. The expenses (2017-2018) of foreign students in India is estimated to be $479 million as compared to $557 million in 2015-16. Even forgetting what it says of us, surely there is such a thing as educational diplomacy. These tell-tale figures need a speedy policy intervention. There is another aspect of this year’s dialogue which is worrying. There was little focus on ocean related efforts, besides a passing reference to ‘blue economy’. Given the experiences of South China Sea or Maldives, almost no reflection on ‘ocean related efforts’ is unwise.
Yet that is not the miracle. The miracle is no one on the panels or in the commentaries thought it worthwhile to raise the above concerns. There seems to be an apparent consensus of the articulate and the influential to focus only on those themes which do rabble rousing. Perhaps a nation building dialogue requires more than being ‘catchy’.
(The writer is a well-known management consultant)
