Let us look at the speech in its own terms. The problem with education some might say is that the PM cannot take on Arjun Singh, and attack the real problems of governance and quality in higher education. The problem with agriculture is that Sharad Pawar has woken too late in the life of this government. The weakness of local government is that we will not take the steps necessary to truly revolutionise local government and protect it from erosion. The problem with NREGA is not the premise; it is its links to an overall development strategy. The obstacle to urban renewal is that radically restructuring the relationship between the states and urban bodies is not even on the agenda; Bharat Nirman’s progress is at best uneven. RTI was a good beginning. But none of the administrative reforms he rightly promised are going to happen. The PM’s ability to take on the cussed security establishment on even trivial matters like visas for foreign scholars, let alone larger issues like Siachen, remains limited. There can be no doubt about the PM’s record on communalism, but whether he can prevent his own party from being lackadaisical in the defence of liberty, or overcome a politics of divisiveness remains to be seen.

The list of issues the PM flagged concentrates on the spending side. Admittedly a speech should not cover everything, but its omissions in terms of controversial reforms are striking. If anything, the speech is not so much an evidence of concern for those who have been excluded. Rather the speech is evidence that the PM is taking the politically and administratively easy route out on almost every single issue that he has flagged. It is almost as if a doctor, having diagnosed a serious illness, prescribes only nice-tasting cough syrup — not because it will cure the disease but because it will taste sweet.

... contd.