When Victor Hugo said one cannot resist an idea whose time has come, he should have written a detailed thesis on how to sell that idea to the public. For the Manmohan Singh government, if nothing else. The government could then have bought a few copies and distributed it among cabinet ministers and Congress party big shots who are expected to sell the party’s and the government’s line to the people, primarily through the media.

While FDI in multi-brand retail might not be the brightest and most revolutionary socio-economic idea, and it is debatable (in parliament!) whether it is THE idea whose time has come, the government is doing everything possible to make it as unattractive as is reasonably possible for people, and the political parties to buy it.

Take Manish Tewari, for instance. An articulate, if monotonously dragging, young lawyer, one expects the Lok Sabha MP from Punjab to connect with people, given his bilingual dexterity. So what does he say as parliament debates the retail FDI issue for the second day running on Wednesday, December 5? He sends out an appeal to all parties to form a “united secular front” and vote for the government on FDI in retail in the Lok Sabha.

“It is an opportunity for parties like BJD and TMC to show their secular credentials and vote for the government," the minister of state for information and broadcasting said.

And what, pray, is the connection? Keeping aside heavy-duty debates like why the Congress should assume the class monitor’s role in upkeep of secularism to the likes of Arnab Goswami, why should the Biju Janata Dal and the Trinamool Congress care for their secular credentials when it is not called for? Why should other parties stop their opposition to the big bad American and suddenly change track and join the queue to meet the good old Martian?

This is not just a case of mixed metaphor; it is mixing up chhole-bhature with appam-sambhar. If Tewari wants, he can certainly have the bhature with the sambhar but why invite others? Isn’t it enough that we have the likes of Mulayam Singh Yadav and Mayawati taking a similar line and keeping their opposition and support for the policy and government, respectively, intact by harping on their support and opposition to certain other principles — secularism and communalism, respectively?

Or take Kapil Sibal, for instance. An articulate, if monotonously dragging, experienced lawyer, one expects the Lok Sabha MP from Delhi to connect with some connection somewhere. Known for his itch to contract the foot-in-mouth disease at the drop of a quote, the communications and IT minister was logical and reasonable in his response to BJP member Sushma Swaraj’s uber-irrational anti-FDI harangue in Lok Sabha on December 4.

Only to come up with a gem: “Pepsico in 2010 had started procuring potatoes from farmers. They started off with buying 22,000 metric tonne in 2010. In 2012, in just two years, they have started buying 60,000 metric tonne. Who is benefitting from this if not the farmers?”

Yeah, who? And that, wipe that smug smirk off your face, Mr Sibal, is precisely one of the arguments of the anti-FDI lobby. That the support price to farmers has not gone up any which way over the years, and that it might remain just as stymied in case of full deregulation. So unless the rates those potato farmers who sell their crop to Pepsico have increased, it’s not the farmers who are benefitting. It’s the private firm — and it matters little about the nationality of that firm.

Instead of selling the retail FDI idea, what Sibal might have done is create further confusion in the minds of the fence-sitters and the undecided.

Or take Manmohan Singh, for instance. An inarticulate, and monotonously monotonous, politician, no one expects the Rajya Sabha MP from Assam to connect with any section of the population or political parties. But as the prime minister of a country, he should know he is a leader not just a party member, and that his statements should sound like, if not exactly be, statesmanlike.

So what did he come up with? Around noon on Wednesday, he says, “Why would we have a debate if we were not confident?” Answer: Duh, who cares. But a return query might seem interesting as well: Are you trying to sell potatoes or convince more than half a nation about the significance of an idea whose time has come?

If the PM is not known for his realpolitik, why does he want to experiment at critical moments? Is FDI in retail a policy decision all about numbers? Is the vote all that matters? If more than half the nation isn’t sure about the benefits of that decision (and let’s not confuse the numbers here, for certain Congress states, besides opposition-ruled ones, are equally unwilling to implement FDI in retail) why can you not have a debate, with or without the vote?

You may not is a different issue, but you certainly can, if not should, Mr PM. And the fence-sitters would have got the idea that the UPA is a little more sincere than just be worried about day-to-day numbers and survival and doing or undoing something, anything or nothing with one eye always fixed on the c.

Yes, Mr PM, the government has the numbers, and it will win the vote in parliament. But as the PM, your job is different from an accountant’s. It is to lead and guide the nation as a wise elder statesman with compassion, not to mouth cavalier one-liners like rookie sheriffs in a Clint Eastwood Western.