The theory circulated that some brilliant minds are at work and it is a wise decision that Rahul Gandhi should speak in Lok Sabha during the debate on No Trust motion only at his 'convenience' is actually a reflection of 'a sense of entitlement'.
The Crown Prince will decide when he should speak. Well, that he can; but he will also decide who all should be present (or absent) and who should speak after him.
The sense of entitlement is of course guided by three factors -- arrogance, sycophancy club and their influence and probably a sense of indecisiveness along with the lack of confidence.
The spin masters at AICC have pushed the line that it was a "surprise decision" by the grand old party not to field Rahul Gandhi to initiate the discussion on the no-confidence motion as was planned and even decided.
The new excuse is Rahul would like to speak as 'well thought strategy' only after key leaders from the BJP have spoken.
Why? Is this the confidence of a man who not only wants to anchor the strategies of 26 parties, but who wants to become India's Prime Minister?
"Party sources said that this decision was taken as part of a strategy of not exposing Gandhi to all the attack", suggested an insider -- as reported. Moreover, the sycophancy club wants to ensure that Rahul is the 'real time' leader pitted against Narendra Modi in 2024.
My argument here will be, why should Modi or the treasury bench floor strategists oblige Rahul on this.
watch out for this space !!
"RG was totally unprepared to speak looks like on a motion he knew was bound to be defeated. Could be Priyanka Gandhi Vadra found no time to school him." - Kat Patil, Pune
ReplyDelete