& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

A walk of shame

.......:'/'.■■. ■ _--;-- ^ —■ ■•.. ■■."■-•.■ " ” ’ ■ ■---;; Cross talk • In that consideration, how has it helped the faction to show a leader who was slurred in speech and faltering in steps? I am not talking about right and wrong. Everything is fair in love and war, and politics is both since battles are waged in the name of love, love of country and love of people. But how does it strengthen the party when the party diminishes its leader? How does it help to pull him from his sickbed and present him as a symbol of unity when he's falling apart? The party stalwart looked like a puppet when others pulled the strings.
IT was a gruesome parade on the political catwalk when a former finance minister, who is the acting chairperson of one of the two factions of his party, was recently dragged in and out of a press conference. His disheveled clothes and incoherent speech suggested that he was gravely ill, and the microphone slipped out of his hand again and again while he couldn't even lift his head to face the audience. The rude reality of life is that what goes around also comes around. At times leaders exploit the party. At times the party exploits them.
No matter what, it was a pathetic show done in bad taste. Yes, leaders have their demonstration effect. Their presence inspires the party workers, shows unity and dispels misgivings, which might be created by a rival faction. Perhaps it was necessary for this particular faction to showcase its leader in
a time of crisis when things are fluid. Perhaps, it was necessary to show it to the country that the faction still had its hierarchy so that nobody could question its strength of discipline.
But what has it achieved? Josef Stalin was a short man, but he was always pictured on a raised dais to enhance his diminutive frame. The paintings of Napoleon Bonaparte show him mounted on a horse to give the impression that he was not after all so much of a little man. Leaders are always made larger than life for obvious reasons. They must rise above the rest of the flock to command loyalty and respect.
In that consideration, how' has it helped the faction to show a leader who was slurred in speech and faltering in steps? I am not talking about right and wrong. Everything is fair in love and war, and politics is both
since battles are waged in the name of love, love of country and love of people. But how does it strengthen the party when the party diminishes its leader? How does it help to pull him from his sickbed and present him as a symbol of unity when he's falling apart? The party stalwart looked like a puppet when others pulled the strings.
There was an inescapable element of cruelty in the whole thing. It is not easy to tell if the leader was brought into that meeting against his will. It is not even easy to tell if the leader was in a state of mind to make that judgment call. What is easy is that the man wasn't physically fit for his cameo role on that day, that the leading actor of the party was treated like a theater prop. It would have been more dignified if he were put in a wheelchair or carried on a
stretcher.
It is said that if one rides on a tiger, one must either ride it to the end or dismount at the risk of being devoured by the beast. It may be true in politics as well, especially when that politics is run by blind fury or misguided passions. So there was a level of desperation when a man in his home attire, was whisked into the limelight by other men who held him by the arms like a fixture ready to be installed in a new location.
That, to some extent, is politics, when invasion of privacy is name of the game. When politicians are ill, when good or bad things happen in their lives, when they fail or succeed, their scandals, tragedies, valiance and cowardice are all part of the public spectacle. What they say become headline banners. What they do begets primetime cover- age. Politics makes news as much as news makes politics. Still nothing justifies what we saw in that press conference when the senior-most leader of a political group was stumbling like a nervous prisoner walking to the gallows.
If anything, it was an indication of something very alarming, that in the dog-eat-dog world of political contest, the instinct for rivalry subsumes everything, that there is no consideration for others when the only thing that matters is zapping of the enemy. I don't know if anybody has noted the irony of it, that those who wanted reforms in the party couldn’t break the mould of old politics. They couldn't hold a press conference without their leader, even though he looked terribly sick!
I am sure his followers and admirers have their own reasons as to w'hy it happened. I am sure in their characteristic eloquence, they should be able to argue that the party is much bigger than the individual and the country is much bigger than the party. But one didn't get the sense of this sublime sentiment out of that ridiculous thing. Instead it appeared as a grotesque ritual in some primitive ceremony where the leader walks in trance under the influence of tribal magic!
Which showed the unmistakable sign that our politics is far from healing. It is not about embarrassing a particular individual. It is not about embarrassing the party either. But it is all about showing disrespect to the people for the same reason sloppy hospitality offends guests. If the purpose of a press conference is to reach out to the nation, it must follow certain etiquette. It must look decent and relevant for the viewers, who are baffled as to whether it was at all necessary to haul out a half-conscious man!
Since then it has left a bad taste in the mouth. What kind of politics is taking shape, which neither respects the leaders nor the people, but forever evolves in the hands of self-seeking middlemen? Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Ziaur Rahman have been assassinated. Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia have been thrown in jail. But politics still revolves around the futile axis where everything is changing, yet everything is constant.
Our politics is stagnant. Whether dead leaders, sick leaders or fallen logs, it doesn’t matter so long as politics remains a profound means to a preposterous end. We shall go in circles from shame to shame.