Arvind Kejriwal is holding an important and responsible position as chief minister of Delhi, but he is known to have used un-parliamentary words in criticising dissidents in his party and in private. He must have very upset and agitated as the offices of his Principal Secretary Rajendra Kumar raided by CBI. He must had lost his temper and abuse India’s Prime Minister publicly. Kejriwal knew before he appointed Kumar that he had been under scrutiny since 2010. Even then a champion fighter against corruption chose Kumar. This is inexplicable. If it is true then one can understand his anger. But even then to use derogatory remarks, and that too by a chief minister against a Prime Minister is hardly justified. But more surprising is that there was hardly any discussion, forget about censoring Kejriwal for his utter indiscretion, ensued.
What could be the reason? Are no friends or admirers of Modi left? Most, even the unshakeable Modi supporters agree that Modi despite his 56 inch chest may not be exactly a coward, but he does believe in the theory of let dogs bark, the elephant would stride on. Such policy could succeed in Gujarat, but India is big, complex and the people having been slaves for 1200 years are used to appreciate a strong leader. Would Kejriwal have dared to call Indira Gandhi a coward? She would have just got her followers to tighten his muffler which would have made Kejrwal squeak Amma.
Modi has not been prime minister for long. Mrs Gandhi’s one stare could unnerve her worst enemies. Because she had over the years proved that she could get her stare turned into dreadful outcome. Modi has no proven record about such ability either. Another lesson from this unfortunate incident for Modi is that neither the media nor many others would come out to defend him and chastise someone who goes overboard in being critical of him. For Indira Gandhi all her chief ministers, MPs and media persons would have hounded Kejriwal. It is time Modi gives up his go it alone principle. VP Singh practised it and lost not only his gaddi but respect of the people as well.
Now calling him a psychopath was more serious matter. It is shameful that no one took umbrage at Prime Minister of India being called a psychopath. Modi as per se may not matter to many, but a prime minister…possibly do not know what psychopath means. Chambers Dictionary describes a psychopath as… he is “someone who shows a pathological degree of specific emotional instability without specific mental disorder” and then goes on ..or one ‘indifferent to or ignorant of his obligation to society (that often manifests in anti-social behaviour such as acts of violence or sexual perversions…”). Did India last year elect such a man as prime minister of our country? Certainly not! But as a psychologist said, “Indians having been ruled for centuries will be in awe of Kejriwal because he is outlandish, but not of Modi who is busy with his plans for better India.”
After this incident one is pretty sure that India can never be happy without a Lalu, and the likes of him. This explains the high percentage of MPs and MLAs with unsavoury background.