Manmohan Singh rehearses his lines before the curtain comes down on his prime ministerial act

January 4, 2014

Manmohan_SinghMumbai, Jan 4: Was it Manmohan Singh? Or was it a robot? To a neutral observer, the difficult answer would be that it was both.

At the end of close to 10 years in office, latent mechanical qualities like passivity, subservience and obedience that must have come in handy for survival at the top, have finally won the battle for the upper hand. The machine in the man spoke on Friday, and both self-styled achievements — growth rate, rural welfare, educational reforms, etc — and self-confessed failures — low employment and high food prices — acquired the same grey monotonous hum of a pre-recorded statement, rendering triumph indistinguishable from tragedy.

For a PM, an appearance before the media is not so much to do with his self-appraisal as selling an image. The image that the PM sold to the nation on Friday was that of a man bidding farewell.

He had done his job to the best of others’ abilities and he was now reconciled to not being thanked too warmly. The prime minister, it appeared, was by now used to expect nothing from the world.

Naturally, he was grim. Certainly, not a smile broke through his features. Whatever happened to those witty lines that Manmohan Singh laced his budget speeches as finance minister in the not too distant past, when Rahul Gandhi hadn’t yet developed the compulsive habit of tearing up ordinances and taking chief ministers to task in public. For someone, who has been in power for two successive terms, Manmohan Singh exuded the air of a man who had seen the end of an era in the mirror that very morning when he was tying the turban.

In the question-and-answer session following his speech, Manmohan Singh was again his inanimate self — at odds with the new virtual world.

In a tone devoid of emotions so natural to the living, he downgraded Narendra Modi’s credentials as a prime ministerial candidate and, in the exactly joyless manner of speech, appreciated Rahul Gandhi’s leadership potential. Praise never sounded so dull as when Manmohan Singh sang it.

The concluding lines of Manmohan Singh’s speech said his government would “revive growth, promote enterprise, generate employment, eliminate poverty and ensure safety and security of all our people, particularly our women and children.” No one listening could have believed him. The words were too repetitive to bear hope. And the prime minister looked as tired as the words.

Perhaps, what made Manmohan Singh think it was a bit too much, what with a billion endless expectations, was how it all started over ten years ago with such fanfare, when destiny had thrust greatness on him as the accidental architect of a “reformed India.” Halfway through in 2009, after he went in for a bypass, politics and life had become an elaborate, extended joke. His heart probably was not in it anymore. Politics was too complex a game. Survival was the collateral damage in the hunt for greatness. There must have been occasions in those ten years when Manmohan Singh asked himself: have I blown it?

And the answer, as it turns out, is yes, mostly. Manmohan Singh lost his resolve halfway through.

Which is why on Friday as Manmohan Singh faced the cameras grimly, the only real message that came through was that he was waiting for his term to end. It must console him that exit (as shown in the accompanying picture) is at hand. And he may be relieved that there was no wild applause at the back as he made egress, and the stage readied for someone else.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
July 31,2020

Thiruvananthapuram, Jul 31: People offered Eid-al-Adha namaz while ensuring social distancing norms at mosques in Thiruvananthapuram and Mallapuram on Friday.

Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan had on Thursday announced that the Eid-al-Adha prayers can be offered in mosques of the state on Friday with a limited number of people due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Kerala is celebrating the festival of Eid-al-Adha on Friday.

Eid al-Adha or Bakrid, also known as "Sacrifice Feast" is marked by sacrificing an animal, usually a sheep or a goat to prove their devotion and love for Allah. Post the sacrifice, devotees distribute the offering to family, friends, neighbours and especially to the poor and the needy. 

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
July 30,2020

Kochi, Jul 30: The Kerala High Court on Thursday refused to grant the extension for the stay of a 74-year-old US citizen, Johnny Paul Pierce, who had earlier said that he felt safer to remain in India than in the United States amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

The single-judge bench of Justice CS Dias, which considered the writ petition, observed that the grant or extension of visa to foreign nationals fall exclusively within the domain of the Government of India (GoI) and that judicial review in such matters is minimal.

The power of the GoI to expel foreigners is absolute and unlimited, the bench said.

"In view of the categoric declaration of law by the Supreme Court, the plea of the petitioner to permit him to stay back in India cannot be accepted, as it falls within the purview of the guidelines and the discretion of the Government of India," the order said.

"The petitioner cannot be heard that the guidelines/policies/regulations formulated by the Government of India, that an American national though has been granted a visa having validity of five years has to leave India within 180 days, is irrational or unreasonable," it added.

The High Court, which was hearing a plea to permit the US citizen to stay in India for a further period of six months, said that the petitioner does not have a case that there is an infraction of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

"The petitioner was well aware of the visa conditions when he arrived in India, and it is too late in the day for him to raise a grievance on the visa conditions," the bench said noting that the petitioner's love for India was heartening.

The High Court also directed the Foreigners Registration Officer to consider the petitioner's representation within a period of two weeks in accordance with the applicable guidelines and policies.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
March 1,2020

Kolkata, Mar 1: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for foreigners to produce a valid passport and its particulars for processing of application for grant of Indian citizenship if he is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non-availability of the document.

Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya passed the order while disposing off a petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the authority "as contemplated in Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules 2009, upon furnishing explanation as to the non-availability of the passport".

Bismillah Khan had filed the petition saying he was being denied the citizenship of India because of his inability to file an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, apparently due to the mandatory requirement of furnishing a copy of the passport for such application.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Khan was a Pakhtoon citizen and due to political turmoil in the said state, which subsequently merged partially into Afghanistan and partially into Pakistan, he, as a five-year old, had to migrate to India with his father in 1973.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have any opportunity of having a valid passport, since they were refugees under distress, the counsel said.

The petitioner had previously approached a coordinate Bench of the court, wherein a single judge, passed an order on July 25, 2018, directing him to comply with the formalities required, as communicated by the secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (Home), vide a letter dated December 7, 2017.

The court had then also given liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh before the appropriate authority under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1955 Act, having complied with all the formalities.

The petitioner then moved Bhattacharya's court submitting that a complete application as directed by the Coordinate Bench cannot be possibly filed by his client due to the mandatory requirement of uploading a copy of his passport, which the petitioner does not have due to reasons beyond his control.

The counsel said Khan is married to an Indian citizen, has a daughter and living in India for close to half a century.

The counsel for the union of India submitted that in view of no application having been filed by the petitioner, there is no scope of granting such proposed application at the present juncture for the Union.

The counsel argued that it is mandatory to file an application in Form III for the application of the petitioner under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act to be considered at all.

In view of the petitioner not complying with the mandatory requirement of submitting a copy of his passport, the state government cannot, under the law, forward such application to the union government.

After hearing all sides, Justice Bhattacharya said although the rule "contemplates that an application shall not be entertained unless the application is made in Form III, such provision ipso facto does not make the availability of a passport a mandatory requirement".

"..the Form given with the Rules or the Rules themselves cannot override the provision of the statute itself, under which the said Rules are framed, which does not stipulate such a mandate on the applicants for citizenship under Section 5 (1)(c) of the 1955 Act mandatorily to carry a passport".

The court said although such provision is included in the Form, which has to be complied with by the applicant, "it is nowhere indicated in such Form that all the relevant particulars, including the particulars regarding passport of the petitioner have to be furnished mandatorily, along with a copy of a valid foreign passport, even in the event the petitioner, for valid reasons, is not in a position to produce such passport".

Justice Bhattacharya ruled that under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the provision of producing a passport and its particulars is mandatory in nature and there has to be a relaxation in such requirement "in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non- availability of such passport".

"Unless such a leeway is given to the applicants, genuine persons who otherwise have all the formal documents indicating that they have been residing in India for a long time and have married a resident of India would also be unable to apply for Indian Citizenship despite having lived their entire lives and contributed to the economy and diverse culture of this country."

He said such a scenario would be contradictory to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"In such view of the matter, the requirement of having a passport has to be read as optional in Form III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and the authorities are deemed to have the power to relax such 6 requirement in the event the applicant satisfied the authorities for genuine reasons why the applicant is not in a position to produce such passport," the February 24 order said.

The court ruled that despite the provision of making applications online, a provision has to be made for persons who do not have all the particulars of their passport, which is read as optional, to file applications manually, which are to be treated as valid applications under Rule 5 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

The court also ordered that alternatively the necessary software be amended so that the online applications can be presented with or without passports, in the latter case furnishing detailed reasons as to non-furnishing of passports.

"Sanctioning of such forms, however, will be conditional upon the satisfaction of the relevant authorities about the reasons for the applicant not being able to produce her/his passport," the order said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.