the last word

"Sometimes a great deal is made in public domain of the opinions expressed by our friends...but this should not alarm you."

- Sonia Gandhi, UPA Chairperson.
On the Left's Opposition to the Nuclear Deal.

Intersting to note:
1. The Left had countered the present Govt. on its Nuclear Programme.
If the Govt. did formalise a meeting with IAEA, this would have resulted in the Left withdrawing support to the Govt inadvertently destablising its 5 year term.

The 'counter' was more of a challenge to the present Govt asking them to take a chance and call in the wager.

Modus Operandi: The Govt. arranged a series of meetings. The actual objective of the meetings were just to keep the Left occupied in the meetings.
In total, 4 meetings were arranged in a span of 3 weeks.
None of them resulted to any conclusion to the Nuclear Programme.

I mean it is common knowledge that if we put a bunch of comrades together and ask them to decide on a subject, they would have endless discussions on which subject to start, but seldom initiate a subject.

Moral: Don't challenge in Politics, just keep the politicians occupied.
Meetings are the best way to keep the politicians occupied while the statesman can continue to run the affairs of the country.

2. If the UPA Govt had called in the wager of the Left.
The incrimination would have been on the UPA to have lost the Nuclear Deal and its ruling position. Maybe the vote banks would not have supported the UPA for a fresh term if re-elections were called.

Modus Operandi: The UPA did not call in the wager, neither did they issue any official statements countering the Left's wager. This would have aggravated the situation than placated it. The UPA was concered with taking the Nuclear Deal ahead.

And this is what todays evening NEWS scrolled.
The PMO(Prime Ministers Office) had 'informal' talks with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed El Baradei.

The talks may have been stated as 'informal', but I think the UPA played the cards astutely against the Left demands of 'no formal' talks.
I think Politics is all about nuances and subtlities and more so about 'playing power' than 'power play'.

Moral: I think a clear thinker is concerned with what the communication is achieving and not who said the last word. 'Power play' is what everybody does, we all have some power to do something, but 'playing power' is what a statesman does.


I think the UPA handled this situation deftly.
The Left as usual have the last word but 'no say'.
And the more they shoot their gobs, the bleaker their situation gets.
I find it unable to credit them for anything but the endemic holler. "Inquilab"
If it isn't the holler, then it is a 'strike' or a 'bandh'

Personally, I think we are often been inclined to have the last word, rebuttal, riposte, or refutal much like the Leftists.
It is not the appropriate thing to do, the right thing to do is just walk away or peacable diagree.
And in intense personal situations just 'agree'. Maybe I don't have to battle every whit out there, some agree some don't. Life and people are just like that.

I think UPA dis-agreed with the Left and still had it their way, while the Left just had their say.

Maybe I need more practice on 'playing power' than 'power play'.