With the newspapers and news channels focusing incessantly on Shashi Tharoor, accusations flying fast and furious at him from all quarters, and with only him defending himself, all kinds of thoughts came into my mind. For a while there it almost seemed as if he had turned the whole country on its head. Political analysts are being asked their opinions, wise old politicians are being asked what they think, journalists are putting forth their inferences, and all the while this one man has been trying to hold his head above troubled, churning waters. No one seems to be coming to his aid. Hard to believe that only a little while ago, he was the darling of the media and the younger generation of politicians. So what went wrong? I don't claim to know much about politics, but one thing seems to stand out. Tharoor seems to have made many people uncomfortable. Whether it is his UN background, or his lifestyle, or his language, he has not stepped on, but , in fact, has jammed everyone's toes in the Indian dust. And the establishment has hit back - hard. Our country is totally and thoroughly amoral and hypocritical. It is against this backdrop that this man - flamboyant, knowledgeable and with the gift of the gab, makes his entrance. A good debater, he has tried by his debating skills to carve out a place for himself in an arena where everyone talks in a language which is full of double meanings, and half-truths which change with the direction of the wind. There is a very wise saying that only those who have not sinned should cast the first stone. In our political scenario, is there anyone who is really clean? and if there are one or two people, they conveniently pull out the 'chuh-chuh-chuh-nodding the head both ways' attitude. I guess the thinking is, 'why on earth would I want to jeopardize my position?' or,'do I know you at all?' or what happens usually is to agree with all parties concerned, kind of a run with the hares and hunt with the hounds phenomenon. Honesty and up-front talking and outspokenness don't stand a chance here.
This is when this word 'circumspect' jumped into my mind. The answer, to my mind, lies in this word. People are ready to accept, people are ready to listen, and people are ready to change their thinking only and only and only if the person trying to effect all this is circumspect. Even if a person is right, legally, ethically or morally, no one will accept that person if he rides roughshod over other peoples' feelings and sentiments. Right or wrong our feelings and sentiments are ours and we all tend to be fiercely protective about them. We would be willing to change them provided we felt good about the person suggesting the change. What then does this important word mean. According to the dictionary, it means, among other meanings, to be cautious, discreet, prudent, clear-sighted and sagacious. In a country with so much diversity in every area of life, the only way to do things is to tread slowly, carefully and in a very, very low-keyed manner. No one in our country, by and large, would deny another a place of importance, unless he is threatened with real or imaginary threats. No matter what the position one has, one has to be conscious of the responsibilities it carries. Otherwise, be the happy junta. Tharoor had much to give the country and he would have been able to , and the people would have accepted him, but only within our system. Corrupt, awful, long-winded, whatever, but that is the system we have and that is the system we are all working in and that is the system in which changes are happening too. Any public position draws attention, no matter how low or high that public position is. And, yes, people will (mis) perceive, (mis) read and (mis) understand. But if our leaders are circumspect, then the 'mis's will be less, and the country will gain more, and we the happy, squabbling, fractious, tamasha-loving junta will be the beneficiaries!