Debating in decibels



The story might well be apocryphal but it’s very much part of the foreign office folklore. Then a joint secretary in the ministry of external affairs, Muchkund Dubey had the habit of talking loudly on phone. His boss and foreign secretary M K Rasgotra occupied a room a few paces away from Dubey’s in the South Block.

One day, Rasgotra overheard Dubey booming way on phone. He waited outside his junior colleague’s room to walk in when the conversation was over. “A telephone,” he told Dubey, “is a very interesting instrument. One merely has to whisper at one’s end to be heard on the other. One needn’t shout across the seven seas.”

What Rasgotra told Dubey —  who also retired as foreign secretary — is relevant as much for our MPs. Many of them, including the seasoned lot, are unable to distinguish parliamentary debates from speeches at public meetings. They are  loud, aggressive and at times arrogant. Humor touches them  seldom. Wit comes by but rarely. They load the air with decibels, not sound thought that’s epigrammatic and understated.

Parliament hasn’t been robbed entirely of the talent it once boasted. It has Pranab Mukherjee, Jaipal Reddy, P Chidambaram, Arun Jaitley, Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie, Kapil Sibal, Sitaram Yechury, Brinda Karat, Shahnawaz Hussain, Sandeep Dixit and Jyotiraditya Scindia.

But their presence isn’t adequate. Nor are their numbers. The void remains. And it has been left by the likes of Bhupesh Gupta, Madhu Limaye, Piloo Modi, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Somnath Chatterjee, Indrajit Gupta, Chandrashekhar,  Narasimha  Rao, Madhu Dandavate, George Fernandes and KP Unnikrishnan to name a few.

They were  men of great learning, erudition and poise. They didn’t need to raise their voice to make a point. The Congress’s Mani Shankar Aiyar may not have belonged to that generation. But he has their class. It’s a pity that he couldn’t make it to the 15th Lok Sabha.

You may ask why LK Advani and Sushma Swaraj do not figure in my shortlist of existing good debaters? An exceptional public speaker, Sushma’s shrill beyond acceptable parliamentary limits and Advani a pale version of his former  self  that  at times got him higher ratings than Vajpayee as a parliamentarian.

Those who shout in the name of debate must know that parliament is no theatre or fish-market. It’s about building the country through ‘ideas exchange’ that’s civil, intelligent and incisive. One can be humorous even while  being  acerbic. Remember what Feroze Gandhi told TT Krishnamachari (who  had  called  him  Nehru’s  lap  dog) before initiating a debate on a financial scam that involved the minister? “I hear you have been describing me as a lap-dog. You no doubt consider yourself a pillar of the State. Today I will do to you what a dog usually does to a pillar.”

That was years ago. But it’s recalled still as a telling example of razor sharp repartee.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (6 votes, average: 4.17 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...
  • rajat

    U dint mention Dr Murli Manohar Joshi, i think he is also a good debater.

    [Reply]

  • subhash saini

    How true! Credit goes to all the political parties when they select their candidates for the Lok sabha.

    [Reply]

  • http://none me

    Sir With lots of new MP’S and young ministers parliamentry sessions will be interesting (and if got chance of watching any of the sessions ion tv ‘ll refer with this blog ).

    [Reply]

    vinod Reply:

    One will have to watch first time MPs for their debating skills. Hope they are trained by their party seniors and can desist from treating parlilament as a public meeting. I am reminded of Indrajit Gupta whose party, the CPI, never had a big presence in the House. So he’d be called to speak after lesser speakers from bigger parties. But he always made his points beautifully and in a concise manner. Young MPs must be provided recordings of his speeches to learn the art from the great master who’s no more.

    [Reply]

  • Indian

    Dear Vinod,

    Good read and interesting article. Also, everything you wrote makes a lot of sense. Thanks!

    [Reply]

  • pavitra

    Why does(do) quack intelligentsia(s) take the JOB to comment on spirituality with out knowing the objective and existential realities about self and human being: I could not understand. Do they not feel that their writings and sayings drags readers and listener to the area of SUBJECTIVE HALLUCINATION.Which facilitate the people for accepting mercurial and arbitrary conclusions about GOOD, TRUTH, JUSTICE, UNIVERSALITY and HUMANITARIAN CHARACTER. As per these people so called GOD ( unproven and unconfirmed faith of human being ) is only the perfect and person can attain the EXCELLENCE only; Whereas reality is that standards of perfection and excellence are created and formed by human beings only on the basis of POWER; the EVIL.

    [Reply]

  • https://me.yahoo.com/a/NJgNuLUmq5Itz8Qd3ypKBXkOQ8Uh#8a5a0 ashok

    The columnist sure has his ear to the ground.

    [Reply]

  • Sharma_r81

    Totally disagree. India has always axed its captains whenever it lost overseas… and it was always counter-productive. Lets instead face the truth. We suck in away matches. A green pitch makes us see red. We are tigers at home and mice away. So lets not blame only the captain. Lets look within and at the BCCI, which despite years of bitter experience has refused to make fast pitches on which our local teams can practice.

    [Reply]

  • Anonymous

    Our players can only be made to perform only if-
    1. BCCI fine them 100% of match fee for every loss (the players who underperformed)
    2. Ban underperforming players from playing in IPL.
    3. Ban underperforming players from signing any commercial deal.

    These guys don’t perform because they know money is raining for them in India in the form of IPL and ads.

    [Reply]

  • ge wang

    Thanks for sharing such a useful site, I will be checking your blog for further updates!

    .sexylovedolls.com.

    [Reply]