India baffles me sometimes, particularly when it comes to mass opinion and feelings. Isn’t it amazing how a majority of Indians have pronounced Rajesh Talwar guilty for the murder of his daughter Aarushi. On the other hand, come what may, you cannot convince people that our PM is guilty in various corruption scams. Figuring out how we form collective opinion might help understand what kind of people we are. However, given the chances of misinterpretation, i must start with three disclaimers. One, there is no conclusive evidence yet in either of the cases. Hence, it is neither my intention , nor is it appropriate, to pass judgment. Two, i’m not comparing our PM with Aarushi’s father. The two cases are unrelated and completely different. The only thing they share is the availability of limited information and close public scrutiny. Three, there is no political, party-specific agenda here.
Let us look at the Aarushi case first. Many of us have discussed it several times over at dinner. Forget the morality of analyzing someone else’s personal tragedy, even our discussions remain inconclusive. On the one hand, we have circumstantial evidence implicating the father. On the other, we have no credible motive. In fact, the family has a plausible explanation for every piece of circumstantial evidence and is vehement about pushing investigation in the case. Given all this, we cannot solve the case. Also, we cannot implicate the parents. We can come up with theories, file cases, call them prime accused or whatever. The fact remains that the Aarushi case is unsolved and is likely to remain so. Yet, in our minds, in the last few months, a seed of doubt about parental involvement has been sown. TV opinion polls showed that a majority of Indians believe the parents did it. Of course, when the Noida police proposed the same theory two years ago, there was a backlash against them. It is only when every possible suspect was found innocent that the police theory gained credibility. The closure report’s mention of the parents and the court order to reopen the case turned the spotlight on the parents. Perhaps what made it worse was that the parents came on TV and tried to give rational, somewhat aggressive, arguments about their innocence. However, by then it was too late. India had made up its mind and wasn’t going to change it. We find it difficult to accept that this is an unsolvable case. We just have to implicate someone, whether the court does it or not, and in this case, it’s the “too-smart-to-begood Talwars”.
Now to our prime minister, Manmohan Singh. Saying his name creates a sense of calm (Dr Talwar has the opposite effect). His slow walk, trademark sad expression , soft voice and lack of aggression make him likable, and more importantly, faultless to Indians. Can you imagine veteran actor AK Hangal doing anything wrong? The AK Hangal persona works wonders in Indian politics. We love people who shut up, stoop low, don’t kick up a fuss and blend with the walls. After all, passive is how most of us all are, and are asked to be. The PM obviously has intelligence, but uses it so very sparingly. It is such a relief. Dr Talwar’s constant, precise arguments are stressful. Why is he explaining so much? Something must be the matter, we think. And on to Dr Singh we go —look at him, a man with so much dignity, trapped in this cesspool of corrupt people. And hence, even though he heads one of the most corrupt Indian regimes of all time, we let him off. We think the press and CBI are troubling him.
Come on, is he really the poor little PM? Isn’t he heading the government, as opposed to being trapped by it? Even if he heads it on someone’s behalf, doesn’t he do what he does by choice? And what is this so-called ‘dignity’ we talk about? What is this extra dignity that Dr Singh has and other politicians don’t ? Can being soft-spoken be equated with dignity? Are we confusing etiquette with dignity ? The PM might be an honorable man. Maybe he deserves big awards but is the PM’s post a trophy ? Or is it a job to be done by an effective leader who knows what’s going on? And if he doesn’t know, or chooses to ignore what’s going on, isn’t he, at some level, guilty?
Again, the aim of this column is not to establish or disprove guilt. It is merely to show that sometimes, we can oversimplify things, confusing mannerisms with moral character. The media thrives on this and dishes out theories that resonate. Dangerously soon, this becomes collective opinion. We have to be watchful. Some of the biggest saints turn out to be sex offenders. Many Godhra accused were acquitted after a decade in jail. Similarly, the Talwars could be guilty or innocent. And maybe you’re right that our mild-mannered PM can do no wrong, but it is possible that he could also be guilty.
March 13, 2011 (The Times of India)