If opposites are defined so on the basis of their transparent differences, 1947 and 2009 could be deemed the appropriate illustration.

On 15 August, 1947, an expectant nation saw the realisation of its dream of independence. People all over the country celebrated the emergence of their political freedom as a personal blessing.The stalwarts who walked to office were of impeccable character with their leader having a vision with the needed breadth for the infant nation.

His speech from the ramparts of the Red Fort elaborating on the theme of a tryst with destiny became historic rhetoric. His counterpart at present is a humble person with equal dedication to his duty as Prime Minister.

The backdrop against which he has to function exposes the decadence in values that is caused by self-seekers, power mongers and mafia associates to whom ethics is a dispensable nuisance and corruption the very salt of life.

No wonder there is the grim reality of squalor stalking the millions that go to bed hungry every night. It would be difficult to be rhetorical for the Prime Minister when the heart bleeds and he does not have the freedom to staunch it.

Which means that his Independence Day address from the ramparts of the Red Fort cannot escape from mouthing sweet nothings amidst a mixture of sentiment, reason and dreaminess.

Whom can the contemporary scenario please where money and muscle power of fortune hunters orient policy decisions to the exigencies of their survival? It is no doubt true that all is not vile and nothing has been achieved.

Food production has grown at a fast rate which, of course, is not fast enough to overreach the demographic rate of growth. Industry and commerce have witnessed new heights and there can be no comparison between the output figures of 1947 and 2009.

The difference still is that consumption of levels of a large segment of the population constitute a mockery of the lifestyle of the few that function in the oasis of affluence amidst a vast desert of poverty and deprivation which cannot entirely be blamed on social disparities.

The Prime Minister could grow emotional about it but will he be able or be allowed to apply the appropriate economic remedies?

It is a truism, an inescapable truth, that a people gets the government it deserves. That reality, as viewed under the conditions of the present day, is a reflection on both the people and the governments they have placed in power.

That, again, is a situation in which governments bend to populism for ensuring their survival, being always aware of how it jeopardises the national interest. As a compromise, those in office seek to sail in two boats at one and the same time of globalisation and ruralisation with the slant on the latter.

Like all efforts to please everyone, it would end up in pleasing none. Any improvement in the domestic situation hinges on fortitude and pragmatism, fortitude to resist pressures contrary to the optimal policy line and pragmatism to steer clear of illusions of ground realities.

This is exactly the Prime Minister’s challenge: The politico-economic future of this polity hinges upon how
he tackles it.