At last the cat is out of the bag! Now it transpires
beyond doubt what ‘The Rising Sun’ editorially observed in the issue dated
February 7, 2010, under the caption ‘Much Ado About Nothing’, was correct. “…. She
(Jayalalitha) herself started the hype-up game by issuing a statement as if she
was obliging the personal invitation extended to her over phone by Chief
Election Commissioner Navin Chawla. She made out as if it was a rare gesture
bestowed only upon her by the CEC,” in the background of a section of media
lobbying for Jayalalitha, blowing out of proportion an inconsequential chance
meeting of her with AICC President Tmt. Sonia Gandhi at the diamond jubilee
function of the Election Commission in New Delhi.
In a ‘rarest of rare’ interview to two women journalists
of ‘The Times of India’ (of whom one is said to be a relative of Sasikala), when
asked, “Is there any significance in the meeting?” she has said, “That remains
to be seen”, thus leaving the gullible readers guessing, instead of honestly
admitting that it was a chance encounter for a very brief while and no
political significance should be attached to it. But honesty and herself poles
apart, she goes further when asked, “What exactly was the exchange you had?”, saying “I was invited personally by CEC Navin Chawla.
He sent two letters inviting me. And then a formal invitation, and (he) followed
it up with a telephone call. So, I decided to go. There I was taken to the VIP
lounge. The Vice-President, the Prime Minister, the AICC President Sonia Gandhi,
the Speaker of the Lok Sabha Meira Kumar and other dignitaries came there. So, when
Ms. Gandhi came there, we greeted each other and exchanged pleasantries. And
BJP leader Sushma Swaraj was also there. We were chatting for about 15 minutes.
Then the President arrived. So, I went to the auditorium and others went to the
dais and the function started.”
By this statement, Jayalalitha cannot categorically say
that she had absolutely one-to-one meeting and discussion with Tmt. Sonia
Gandhi and leaves it ambiguous for one’s guessing either way. But even now she
consciously buttresses the speculation, originated by her, of a possible tie-up
between her party and the Congress in so many vague phrases like, ‘All remains
to be seen in the future… people would like a change… Anyway, any decision has
to be taken by the Congress leadership… Let us see how things work out” etc., -
all betraying her craving for an alliance somehow or the other.
Kalaignar had pointed out that Jayalalitha had created
an impression of closeness to the Congress Party and Chief Election
Commissioner Navin Chawla by claiming that the CEC had phoned her to get her to
participate in the diamond jubilee of the EC and even seated her among the
important leaders. Her satellite TV channel went to the extent of telling that
the CEC came out of the venue of the function upto her car and saw her off, luckily
sparing him of the ignominy of being told that he reverentially opened the door
of the car to let her in. Nonetheless the entire episode of her visit and its
significance is Jayalalitha’s exercise in vainglory! And the rest of her
‘planted’ interview in which she speaks on national security, internal security,
war in Sri Lanka, welfare schemes, economy etc., are exercises in triviality
and idiocy.
In keeping with her attempt to strike a friendly chord
with the Congress, she had taken a soft stand on the UPA government’s
performance, against which she had all along been leveling wild allegations. While
all shades of public opinion and well-meaning politicians and intellectuals
wish to improve relations with China in the interests of both countries even
while not compromising the security of our borders, it is only war–hawks like
half-baked Jayalalitha who want ‘strengthening of our armed forces, providing
them the latest equipment and motivating them with more perks and concessions’
in order to ‘equal the challenge posed by China.’
Similarly her remarks on Sri Lankan situation in the
context of last Parliament elections in the State smacks of her utter disregard
for people’s verdict. Pointing out the ‘number of suicides committed by farmers
in other states’ (not Tamil Nadu) she goes on to say that, “That was one point
I stressed upon in the parliamentary election,” thereby admitting that she and
other opposition leaders had been harping on non-issues and getting rebuffed by
the electorate.
Her view on distribution of freebies and welfare schemes
reflect Jayalalitha’s class and caste bias and intellectual bankruptcy. Moreover,
it is antithesis of the declared policies of her mentor MGR, who assiduously
cultivated a pro-poor image of himself and introduced many freebies including
nutritious meals scheme during his rule. It is only orthodox capitalism that
segregated the State and the welfare of its people leaving the latter to their
own destiny. Even in the avowedly capitalist state of the USA there are many
welfare measures for the poor and downtrodden like health insurance, agricultural
subsidies etc., That the charter of the United Nations Organisation and its
wings like the UNESCO commit the member nations to the welfare of their peoples
underlines universal acceptance of welfare measures as the criteria of a
welfare state, which is defined in many forms like subsidies for food, energy, power
and inputs for agriculture and industry, pension for old aged persons, destitutes
and widows without assistance, concessions for physically and mentally
challenged persons, education, public healthcare and insurance, unemployment
relief etc., In a caste-ridden society like India, even the system of
reservation for education and employment opportunities is a welfare measure.
The argument advanced by Jayalalitha against welfare
measures per se is the governing philosophy of the developed and rich countries
in international relations, where they try to impose restrictions on developing
and poor countries, in order to sustain and develop their hegemony over the
economies of the latter and continue to exploit their markets. While the developed
countries try to impose conditionalitieslike cut in subsidies, concessions etc.,
through the instruments of international financial agencies like World Bank and
International Monetary Fund and trade regimes like GATT and WTO, they resort to
protective measures for their own industry, trade and agriculture. In fact the
highest agricultural subsidy is given in the USA followed by European countries.
Even in the on-going international conclaves on climate change and
environmental protection, sharp contradictions arise between the developed and
developing world.
She is arguing against welfare schemes putting forward
the time-worn and out-dated statement, “You must enable the people to buy
things themselves. If a state government spends money on starting local
industries and provide employment to the local people there, that will enable
them to send their children to ‘good’ schools. And those children when they
grow up will get good jobs and earn good salary. With that they can build their
own concrete houses and buy their own colour TVs. That is the way you take the
society forward.” If this is her concept of society, she seems to be influenced
more by the likes of empty-boaster Cho Ramaswamy and their caste and caste
outlook than by her mentor MGR. The two lady-journalists, like their
counterparts in the field in Tamil Nadu, consciously did not ask her how many
industries did she start during her 10-year rule, how many were provided
employment enabling them to send their children to ‘good’ schools, how many of
those children grew up and earn good salary and how many built their own
concrete houses and bought colour TVs. This is what even unlettered villagers
in the state say, ‘nghfhj CU¡F Ïšyhj tê fh£Ljš’ (Pointing non-existent route to
unintended place). If this is the guiding principle of her party for governance,
will she declare that in her election manifesto for the Assembly elections in 2011
and promise to cancel all the freebies and welfare measures implemented by the
DMK government.
She had cast aspersions on Tamil Nadu government
officials and State police and insisted on bringing in government and police
personnel from ‘Gujarat’ or some other state for election duty (By opting
particularly for ‘Gujarat’ she seems to believe that her friend Narendra Modi
would lend her a helping hand as reciprocal gesture for her attending his
swearing-in ceremony and hosting for him sumptuous lunch with 49 dishes at her
residence). Well, if any misfortune, she gets elected to rule the state again, will
she dismiss from service all these ‘untrustworthy’ government and police personnel
and recruit her own loyal servants?
The problem with Jayalalitha is that the ever-growing
popularity of Kalaignar’s welfare schemes and their acceptance and replication
at the national level, and her inability to ingest the same driving her to madness,
are directly proportional. Unfortunately there are none around her to tell that
greatness cannot be thrust upon one. She does not seem to learn lessons from
repeated experience of misguided (by the servitude media) inflated ego
invariably landing her in troubles and failures (during the last parliamentary
polls inclusive). She may only be prescribed to read in sobriety the great
British thinker and humanist philosopher Bertrand Russell’s book ‘Is happiness
still possible?’ in which he graphically illustrates the fact of over-estimation
of oneself inevitably leading to disaster!
(21-02-10)
No comments:
Post a Comment