He made a dog's breakfast of his 'bite', but that doesn't mean VK Singh is entirely wrong

The ‘stoning dogs’ remark by General VK Singh, our minister of state for external affairs, has dominated news coverage throughout a day when Prime Minister Narendra Modi was laying the foundation stone for Amaravati, the nation’s 29th state capital. And for the second time in recent times, a day for the Centre to be proud, became a day when it saw opprobrium heaped upon it due to an Indian Army officer-turned-Cabinet minister shooting his mouth off. [caption id=“attachment_2479042” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] VK Singh’s remark was definitely disgusting but logically sound. PTI[/caption] The (relatively) young Lieutenant Colonel Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore should have sought advice before bragging to the media about what was meant to be a covert operation, but VK Singh, with 42 years of distinguished service, should really have thought twice before his politically incorrect sound bite. But here’s the scary thing. Beneath the insensitive, crass, reprehensible and frankly ignorant one-liner lies a fact lost on us when we picked up the cudgels to bludgeon the retired general. Besides, let’s not forget, he gave the battalions of unthinking and forever outraged internet vigilantes the term ‘ presstitute ’ to lazily hurl at the best of us. But that’s a digression. Singh’s statement accurately reflected the nature of India’s governance system – it is a federal structure of governance. And what this means is that certain issues fall under the Union list, while others are under the state list, or the concurrent list. Policing and public order are under the state list, while criminal law is under the concurrent list as provided for in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. In law and order situations, central police forces may assist, only if the state government requests their assistance. Ergo, Singh’s statement – that he probably meant to make – saying that the central government is not responsible for everything that happens across the country, is factually correct. Like US President Barack Obama, Modi could, it can be argued, go from state to state addressing the aggrieved in a tragedy and express empathy. But he doesn’t have to . The office does not require that. Instead, it should have been the chief minister of the state, in this particular case, who should have tried to approach the aggrieved. As far as the Prime Minister goes, it is his call entirely to decide whether to do that or to wax eloquent at a rally to try to gather votes ahead of a major election. It is not an obligation. Besides, there are enough people queuing up to ‘meet the survivors’ or make the most of a photo-op, as the cynics would have you believe. With that in mind, it is incumbent upon the holder of a public office to be judicious with the use of his/her language. Just as you would never forgive a CXO of a major publicly-traded company saying, “Joe, I’m so glad we’ve finally managed to get you to quit even though we’ve wanted you gone for a while, and I personally hope you burn in hell”, but instead be fine if the sentiment was conveyed in a much gentler, “Joe, thank you for your services, we understand your reasons for leaving us and wish you the best in your future endeavours”, you would hope for the same from a cabinet minister. Not the insincerity, but the sensitivity. And that sensitivity is what appears to have been lost amidst the whole hoop-la. The fact that two innocent children died seems to be lost on Singh and those who lined up to bludgeon him - for what is clearly not his first case of shooting from the hip. And equally lost on every single person that is trying to gain political mileage from the tragedy.