Silence is Never a Policy

This man Manvendra Singh should be admired for his choice of words; so prominent with meaning. I have written about him in my earlier post. I was attracted by another sentence in the same article. It went as the topic says Silence is never policy. Though it has been said in a different context, I am tempted to extend the meaning. In present days, we have been witnessing many scams being surfaced. Since they are at the door step of government, it was very apt for the PM to respond to them. To the surprise of every thinking men, there is stoic silence maintained by him. Everyone knows who the de facto ruler of the nation is at present. Mincing no word it can be asked, the super PM, as she has been told by many quarters, Sonia Gandhi should have spoken a word at least. They have some people taking part in TV talk shows. To say over all they have been very disappointing. It appears, congress has only two strategies in their hand. First, they point to the precedence of the wrong doing and second one to keep silence.
The first method tends to show that one wrong justifies other. It was shown in Shivraj Patil’s report on 2G scam that there was wrong allegation ascribed on the opposition. That shows that government is trying to hide behind an imaginary wall rather than face the problem. This to some how is better than second option. This allows debate to continue and facts to get revealed. The second one, the option of silence, is more harmful. It leaves every one to speculate. Now this is being followed as policy. So this should be further dissected. There are few reasons for silence..
1) Being optimistic, there is no wrong doing but leader does not know how to articulate and discuss. It was once accepted by Jayanti Natarajan, spokesperson of Congress, in a TV talk show, that Man Mohan Singh is man of action and not of word. It was like saying that PM does not know how to speak. That is so typical of a bureaucrat, to act. We must know how the bureaucrats act. They act as per the command of leader. They are responsible for implementation and not for the policy. They have been trained for this. This is the reason that even when the governing parties change they continue to be in the positions. They do this continuously and the best among them do it the best way and nothing more. Man Mohan Singh has been hailed for economic reforms. That was a policy. So a politician should be responsible for that. Since he is nota politician so it should not be ascribed to him. That was wrong attributed ascribed to him.
2) The second option is very dangerous what if there is wrong doing and then silence is to protect the same. The silence is like a invisible and non existing wall to save from the impeding disaster. If such option is exercised by a non state actor then it is not of great concern. Either he can be of no consequence or he can punished. But even imagination of such option being exercised by the state is horrific. Bharat is not only a nation like any other nation. We represent a culture, a thought. We cannot let down such a tradition by our negligence. Silence can never be policy of state. If king becomes silent, intelligentsia should take the lead. If that too fail then there will be chaos because at the next level is the money power which can easily corrupt a gullible but so proclaimed innocent mind. We can see such option being exercised by dictators. But such power is never stable and it is shown that they are uprooted sooner or later by a mob fury (very visible in present days).
Finally we cannot remain silent.