The admirers of the prime minister, Narendra Modi, have an unenviable ability to miss the proverbial woods for the trees. Fresh evidence of this has tumbled out
after the conclusion of Mr Modi’s speech during the no-confidence motion proceedings. There has been much gloating about Mr Modi delivering the longest-ever speech by any prime minister in a no-confidence motion debate. But the truth of the matter is that oratory is not judged by its volume: it is to be assessed by its depth and reflection. Mr Modi was found wanting in these aspects. During his speech, Mr Modi,
as is his wont, sputtered whataboutery, sundry inanities and tiresome cliches, much to the disappointment of the conscientious segments of his audience.

The outcome of the no-confidence motion brought by the coalition of Opposition parties against Mr Modi’s government was a foregone conclusion. The National Democratic Alliance always had the numbers that were required to coast home comfortably. The real point of interest was, thus, the content of Mr Modi’s rebuttal. After all, the prime minister of the mother of democracy was being forced to speak on Manipur — the real objective of the no-confidence motion — months after the state began to burn. It was natural that India and INDIA were keen to hear
Mr Modi’s views on a subject of national concern. But Mr Modi thundered to deceive, once again. In a speech that lasted for over two hours, the prime minister concentrated on Manipur for a little over five minutes. His brevity was not the only disappointment: Mr Modi failed to outline a concrete response to resolve a deep and complicated crisis that has engulfed the state. What he offered instead were vague pledges and piety, both of which have come too late in the day anyway. The hollow rhetoric was, of course, accompanied by meaningless fire and brimstone hurled at the Opposition, especially the Congress. Mr Modi went to the extent of digging up episodes from the past — Jawaharlal Nehru, he alleged, had surrendered Assam to the advancing Chinese while Indira Gandhi bombed Mizoram — that have no bearing on Manipur’s current woes. He also accused the Opposition of practising cynical politics: Mr Modi cited INDIA’s refusal to accept the Union home minister’s suggestion for a discussion on Manipur as proof. But then, at last count, Mr Modi was shepherding the nation as prime minister. He still is. Why, then, should he recuse himself — flee — from a legitimate demand to not only speak on but also douse the flames in Manipur? Why is New India’s Man of Steel evasive on every crisis, be it Manipur or Chinese aggression?

Despite Mr Modi’s diatribes, he has handed over the Opposition a brownie point before the next general election. This is because the no-confidence motion that was brought by INDIA has now revealed to the nation that its prime minister has no blueprint to end the blood and agony in Manipur. What India would like to know next is whether Mr Modi’s failure is the result of ignorance, ineptitude or, worse, complicity.