Leadership crisis in India - Conclusion

I apologise for being away for a while again, especially without finishing an idea that I started. A combination of factors has been the reason but indolence is perhaps at the top of that. Anyway to comeback to what I was saying in my previous post, how does one identify a leader. I must say that in most situations leaders do come into the forefront situationally. The problem lies not with the people who have leadership qualities (there are enough of them) but with those who cannot recognise a good leader even when there is one standing in front of them. This is the true problem that India has. And it stems out of the fact that there is no semblance even of a meritocracy in India. I am the first to argue that a complete meritocracy is unachievable and also that there are a few philosophical issues that complicate the issue of what constitutes merit and therefore what is a meritocracy. Under the circumstances one will have to have some operational guidelines of what a concept is so as to not end up in nihilism. I say this because many times I have come very close to becoming or may even have been a nihilist, in instances. Without getting into rhetoric it is possible to argue that there is a system in place and that leaders are required to run it on a daily basis (house keeping functions) and also to look into the future not as in crystal ball gazing but as in anticipating problems that a country is likely to face and also being ready with strategies that will become solutions to those problems. That is a simple enough proposition and very workable.

Take the case of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Most people are quite happy to make stupid jokes about him, call him a puppet etc. These people are missing a point. They are unable to look at a true and good leader. That is because the stereotypical way of looking at leaders is that which says leaders must be powerful orators, whip up mass frenzy, make people do things that they demand of them and the list goes on. In which case the greatest and most successful leaders in the world would be Hitler and perhaps even N T Rama Rao. I do not have to say anything about the first name, but people maybe surprised by my bringing up the second name in this context. To me N T Rama Rao was a failed leader, whose non-existent leadership qualities came to be extolled only because of the stupidity of the general mass of people. Somebody plays a few stupid roles in films and people think that in real life too that person will be a saviour just as he was in films. But fortunately that was found out by the people who sent him out of power and the second time he became Chief Minister only because people realized that the other party the Congress that is, was even more incapable. This trend seems to continue with Chiranjeevi being taught a good lesson at the hustings. But the problem is grave, irrespective of a few people being taught lessons. Rahul Bajaj one said that Chandra Babu Naidu was thinking about the next generation when other politicians were thinking about the next election. I hope he has realised how far away he was from reality since time has shown that Naidu is nothing but a cunning, devious and opportunistic politician. Today people are singing praises of Y S Rajashekhar Reddy and his leadership qualities and how that won the Congress elections in Andhra Pradesh. If leadership is all about promising free things, ruining the economy and keeping people lazy and below the poverty line, then I have nothing to say. Naidu ran the State like it was a business corporation and Reddy ran it like it was his personal fiefdom. Yet there should be some explanation for the Congress doing well in the elections. For all my criticism of Y S R Reddy I would say that two projects "Jalayagnyam" and "Arogyasri" showed glimpses of some thought. Now is the time to renew my thoughts on Manmohan Singh. Not an orator, not a charismatic personality but a most impressive leader. He knows what needs to be done for the future of this country as much as the present. His initiatives in education are laudable. Education of the people is true empowerment and that is where his vision can be seen. The launching of new National Universities is testimony to this. Power or electricity is one of the most important issues facing the country today and its development hinges on how much electricity is generated. Manmohan Singh's initiative in signing the 123 Agreement with the USA against all odds is truly outstanding. Nuclear power is the way ahead undoubtedly. Now here is a politician thinking of the next generation and how many have recognized this? Not too many in my estimation. A leader at the top can take initiatives but how many of them will convert into reality? One person's leadership is not adequate. There should be many, many more who are able to take the process forward at different levels. Singh wants universities, but these may end up with Vice-Chancellors who are political appointees in which case the new universities will also fall into the same rut as the existing ones. This is India's problem. Too few people to recognise the many leaders that are there around them and endow them with leadership positions. Instead there are mediocre and less than mediocre people manning important institutions like universities in particular and education in general. There are many other spheres like this. There are people who can man them but never will, simply because India's leaders are rabble-rousers who are quite contented to stay in positions of power by cunning means while real issues are thrown away somewhere. I am not a prophet of doom, but there is a crisis looming upon this country and there is very little leadership and thought about how to handle that.