Being a public figure, especially in India is almost like having a bath under Niagara fall. First, you are exposed, not only to the looks but also to the cold and harsh environment. Moreover, one should fake a smile and keep a calm composure, even when shivering to the core. Despite all human efforts the spectators would make fun out of the stellar performance.
When the public figure is a politician his past is expected to run parallel to all his present actions guiding or misguiding his future. For all his intelligence and determination exhibited to bring the Gandhi family to the court and made them ‘bailed’ out politicians, Subramanian Swamy was also a human being. And, in line with his maverick nature, his thoughts and actions also were volatile, sometimes, fighting the enemy he goes deep into their ranks, he becomes one of them – only to start fighting along with them. May be Stockholm syndrome!
Though people normally tend to remember only the recent past, in all parties normally there exists a cadre dedicated to delve upon the past of opponents. The moment Prime Minister Narendra Modi declared Raghuram Rajan being patriotic, all the hell in the media broke loose. As if Modi gave the interview with the sole purpose of reprising Swamy, all other content forgot in the cacophony that centred around Swamy. May be it is a time for celebrations to all those ‘victims’ of Swamy.
The Ghulam, who could never be ‘Azad’ speaking on behalf of Congress, the perennial punch bag of Swamy before he trained his guns on Rajan felt Modi only chided Swamy like a doting mother. Suddenly I remember Yasoda’s love of Krishna. Then why entire media was celebrating, as if Modi had condemned Swamy? Aren’t these two feelings are anti-parallel?
It depends on how one take it. And Swamy took it philosophically. This is the problem with intellectuals. Their knowledge of everything could be used for self-defence. Swamy simply quoted Gita and took the comments of Modi in stride.
The world is in general equilibrium. A small change in one parameter effects changes in all variables. So Krishna advised: Sukh Dukhe….
— Subramanian Swamy (@Swamy39) June 28, 2016
Coming to think of it, why the hell Narendra Modi remarked a comment on Subramanian Swamy? He fended many a questions lightly but chose to comment on one of his colleagues, whom he himself picked up to defend the party in the Rajya Sabha.
The answer lies in the way Modi administered Gujarat earlier and now the nation. Modi, as Chief Minister of Gujarat never allowed RSS to take roots in the state. Condition of VHP was worse. For records, there were many speeches of Pravin Togadia and Uma Bharati commenting on Narendra Modi, the Chief Minister. It is evident that by becoming Prime Minister, Narendra Modi had established certain shrewdness in contemplating and executing situations and plans. In the same interview he hinted that he did not asked Rajan to go immediately after assuming the office, only to indicate he could very well have done it – had he felt so.
Coming to Swamy (I am a fan of his determination – let me make it clear), his record was never straight. Even if Rajiv Gandhi comes alive today, himself he cannot explain why his best of friends, Subramanian Swamy is hell bent to destruct the lives of his wife and children. It is equally surprising how Swamy became a close friend to Rajiv Gandhi, when he was an opponent to his mother – politically. Only thing consistent in Swamy’s life was his following the earlier head of Kanchi Kama Koti Peetham, Paramacharya, the late Chandrasekhara Saraswathi. Most of his political actions were guided by the seer and his instructions, whether he helping PV Narasimha Rao or acting as an emissary to establish relations with China or not joining the Congress at the same time.
But, Swamy was never part of RSS. Not even today. He is not part of VHP. He had created his own VHS. He was very vocal in condemning both BJP and RSS as he explained in the article he had written in the Frontline in the year 2000. He worked overtime to ensure that Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s government was voted out of power, even with the margin of only – one vote. From being a person critical of RSS to being the leader of VHS, was a transformation he could manage easily. People may call this being opportunistic, but by the same standards, Muhammad Iqbal also could be called. But, I always held Iqbal equal to Subhas Chandra Bose and felt Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was responsible for Iqbal becoming a Muslim conservative and visualise a separate nation for Muslims. Iqbal was not an opportunist, and so Swamy.
But, as an administrator of the government, Narendra Modi have many other things to deal with. He never gave credence to the comments of Sadhvis and Maharajs and in the same interview he held media responsible for their popularity. Narendra Modi was clear about his choices of governors to the Reserve Bank of India; how and when they would go and come. He need not be seen by the people of the country to acceding to the campaign by one individual, who is not part of the government, but affecting its decisions. Had he not spoken against Swamy, in all probability, he would be dubbed as the Manmohan Singh of Swamy. This, he cannot afford to allow. And so, the comment.
Even otherwise, Swamy went overboard with his campaign against the bureaucrats, who perhaps were having allegiance to the party that ruled earlier, rather than being committed to the government of the day and to the constitution. Still, he should remember he is not in the opposition and certainly do not belong the privileged category to which Arvind Kejriwal belongs to. He is a member of the ruling party. Yes, he has his freedom of speech like me and you to criticises the decision of the government or any actions of the government. But then there is something called decorum that needs to be displayed in the course of public life. A government cannot be seen being dictated by an individual whom most describe as a loose canon.
But, why in the first place Narendra Modi choose to induct Swamy into the Rajya Sabha. He serves a purpose. The purpose of negating the influences of the opposition with reasoning. And he does it with usual efficacy. But, Subramanian Swamy is like a double edged sword. And Modi, with all of his administrative experience in Gujarat very well know that a thorn used to remove another one is also equally dangerous. Still, he kept Swamy close or closer.
May only Don Corleone can explain: Keep your friends close. Enemies, closer.
Swamy quoted to maintain equilibrium in both Sukh and Dukh.
I just want to suggest him another one, from the same Gita:
कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन।
मा कर्मफलहेतुर्भूर्मा ते सङ्गोऽस्त्वकर्मणि॥ २–४७
One doesn’t have any rights or control on the results of the work that was his right. (Okay, this could be written into many pages, I know).
