On Friday 12 Jun 2009 9:09:38 am Indrajit Gupta wrote:
> Would you be very angry if I asked you to re-think and tell us - me - your
> analysis of the failure of the top leadership? For the sake of good order,
> perhaps we need to restrict it to our own leadership.
>
> You started by saying that leadership that we get is by no means perfect,
> and that we may not hope for more, but why is that so? When even the man in
> the street displays a degree of integrity and good sense, why do our chosen
> leaders behave like such scoundrels?
and.
On Saturday 13 Jun 2009 10:58:52 am Indrajit Gupta wrote:
> It strikes me that this extends far deeper than just a national leadership.
> Why is even our leadership at state level so poor? A cross-section of
> people from the street, or from homes, or from any statistically valid
> random sample will display a greater degree of moral rectitude than our
> leadership.
Well IG there seem to be two types of leaders. One type actually make
companies work, run businesses and other organizations. Ar least some of
these leaders have an innate ability to lead. Very often the nation survives
on the work of unsung leaders. Even a wife who runs a home successfully on a
budget might fall into the category of such a leader.
On the other hand we have "appointed or anointed leaders" whose appointment is
based on application (standing for election) and not on the basis of any
capability to lead. Perhaps I need to modify that. Anointed "leaders" such as
our politicians have often shown some narrow leadership ability in the genre
of being leader of a generally victorious gang of street thugs, or mobilizers
of money by various means. At best these representatives have led a
particular parochial interest group.
It is the mistake of society (particularly Indian society) to consider them
national "leaders" rather than national servants, which is what they really
are and should remain. There is a gap between desire and reality which we are
able to recognise under some circumstances but fail to see under other
circumsatnces.
For example if some random person says "Aishwarya Rai is my lover" everyone
would instantly pick up the nuance here which differentiates between desire
(He wishes AR were his lover) and reality. But when it comes to elected
representatives - they are instantly called "leaders" in a manner that does
not differetiate between desire ("I hope he will lead") and reality. Our
anointed leaders in turn revel in all the external trappings
of "leadership" - motorcades, flashy cars, and the unblinking acceptance of
descriptions such as "The right honorable Shri Bal Thackray".
At least part of the problem (and therefore part of the solution) lies in the
way people (Indians) view "leadership"
"Anointed Leaders" are viewed (by Indians) as superhuman beings (the Ram in
Ram Rajya) who are morally and socially above you, and therefore cannot be
your servant. They dictate, you implement. Perhaps the biggest "fault" among
Indians is the issue of "patronage". Even when systems exist for work to be
done via a particular route, Indians prefer to use a system of hierarchy that
bypasses the proper route and gets out of turn work done as a "special
favor", which has the side effect of perpetuating the hierarchical system and
cementing personal bonds.
For example, there is a leaky drain outside your house. Normally you would
inform the local city works department to fix it. But in India this is
routinely bypassed by contacting a local politician, who in turn informs an
underling, who tells the local department to fix it. Now if I have a personal
equation with the politician I can ensure that the drain is fixed. If the
drain is near bonobashi's house and he does not know the politician, he asks
me, and ask the politician. This puts bonobashi in my debt and puts me in the
politician's debt, maintaining all the hierarchies we Indians need to
maintain.
Unfortunately "patronage" itself is a fundamental construct of Indian society
in which the father (pater) is :
1) To be blindly obeyed and respected
2) Allowed to make unreasonable demands and judgements which are not to be
questioned.
The system of patronage puts father at the top of the hierarchy, eldest son
next, younger sons later in a tiered hirearchical system. What we do is to
elect and anoint some buffoon with he title of "leader=father" and then
regard him as we have been taught to regard father. The British too were
masters of the patronage system. There exists a medical paper in a reputed
medical journal written almost entirely by me, but was published with my name
second or third, with a co-author (a pathologist) getting his name first
because it was "more important" for his career. This was achieved by a phone
call from the boss of the student pathologist to one of the editors of the
journal "Steve, I'm sending you Andrew's paper and I'd like you to have alook
at it - I think it is new work worth publishing". With my name - perhaps it
would not have been published.
The only long term solution might be to make incremental improvements using
the few tools available to us. The right to information act is one such tool.
Other lesser means would be to stop encouraging the inviting of politicians
to inaugurate something or address gatherings about which they have no
knowledge or connection (such as a medical conference). These acts are a
perpetuation of the patronage system.
Sorry it got so long - but there is a danger that my verbal diarhea might not
stop
shiv
