Storm in a Tharoor teacup

Do we not read? Or does it suit us to pretend we don't?

As announcements go, the above from Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju is a small, uncomplicated one — and yet, apparently, it is too much to expect keyboard warriors on X, and sections of the commentariat, to read it through to the end.

Following that announcement, Jairam Ramesh posts the names of four Congress MPs recommended by the party in response to Rijiju’s request for names to comprise the delegations.

The responses to his post are instructive in a social media train wreck sort of way — a mix of jumping to conclusions about the “omission” of Shashi Tharoor and Manish Tiwari, and random gaslighting and ad hominem attacks on the MPs whose names had been submitted.

The general narrative has become that Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge proposed certain names, which the BJP ignored while picking Shashi Tharoor. Taking it further, blue tick posters asked if the Congress was suppressing talent such as Tharoor and Tiwari.

Congress handles, such as this one, crow about the BJP needing Congress people “against world powers”. BJP handles, such as this one, spin it as Congress not trusting Shashi Tharoor, of the high command being scared of being overshadowed, and suchlike.

Hot on the trail of this controversy, the media buttonholes Shashi Tharoor and asks him about the omission of his name. And, bizarrely, Tharoor responds:

"The party is completely entitled to its opinion. Clearly, this being a government delegation, the government had its own opinion as to who they felt was appropriate.” (There is more — check the link above).

So, for the benefit of those who either can’t or don’t read, or for their own reasons chose to pretend they haven’t read, here is the relevant section, in bold face, quoted from the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs notification that leads this post:

Members of Parliament from different parties, prominent political personalities, and distinguished diplomats will be part of each delegation.

The following members of Parliament will lead the delegations (Followed by the names).

Does this need spelling out? The seven names listed in Rijiju’s announcement are not the delegation. Rijiju’s post on X clearly mentions that the seven designated MPs will lead the seven delegations — not that they are the delegation.

Having picked the leaders of the delegations, Rijiju then asked for names of Parliamentarians to comprise the delegations, and Jairam Ramesh responded with four nominations.

Shashi Tharoor’s name was not put forward by Ramesh because he had already been chosen to lead one of the delegations.

Capisce?

This nonsensical kerfuffle could have been avoided had either Jairam Ramesh, or one of the Congress spokespersons, or Tharoor himself, chosen to point out the bloody obvious — but no, it apparently suits all parties to keep these fires burning.

In passing, why is Modi’s BJP, not exactly known for working with the Opposition, making an exception in this case? You could cite precedent — after the 26/11 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, for instance, the then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh sent all-party delegations to various world capitals to put forward India’s stance on Pakistan, terrorism, and related matters.

But then, if the BJP was following precedent, it would have called for a special session of Parliament to discuss Pahalgam and Operation Sindhoor, as the Opposition had requested. There is precedent for this, too — following 26/11, a special session of Parliament had been called, and the Opposition then led by LK Advani had been allowed to speak at length.

If not respect for precedent, then what? It strikes me that by coopting the Opposition, the BJP achieves two ends. One, it seeks to reclaim the global narrative, which at this point is inordinately tilted towards equating India with Pakistan, and eliding the question of Pak-sponsored terrorism.

And, two, by coopting them, the BJP stops the Opposition from asking inconvenient questions. As for instance:

• What was the intelligence input that caused PM Modi to call off his planned 19 May visit to that exact part of Kashmir where terrorists struck day later? Could acting on that intelligence have prevented the tragedy that followed?

• Where are the perpetrators of the Pahalgam massacre? Why, in one of the most militarized zones in the world, are all the king’s horses and all the king’s men unable to find, and end, the four terrorists who wreaked mayhem on innocent tourists?

• Why, if S Jaishankar had informed Pakistan of the impending strikes, were the border villages not evacuated in time? Did the government not anticipate, and provide for, a Pakistan response? Was, as Jaishankar’s words seem to indicate, the government so naive as to assume that telling Pakistan in advance that it was going to be hit would in and of itself prevent the Pak military from responding?

There are many other questions surrounding the episode — and they have gone, and will continue to go, largely unasked. A, because the government by denying a joint session of Parliament has taken away the forum where it can be questioned and B, because the Opposition, now part of the government’s narrative-building push, can hardly turn around and take the government to task.

I have more to write, specifically on Tharoor and all that is happening with, and around, him — but I’ll leave that for a follow-up post for tomorrow. For now, I’ll leave you with this excellent interview The Atlantic’s David Frum did with Tharoor (and I’d recommend that you read the comments below the video to get an idea of what a calm, reasoned narrative can do to persuade minds).

PS: In the wake of renewed activity on this Substack, a heap of new subscribers appear to have signed up. Just to set your expectations straight: I don’t post every day, and I certainly don’t post on every thing that happens. I post when I have something to say — and that something could range from politics to current affairs to books and reading or the environment, or whatever else catches my eye. So now you know. :-)