India's Lost Leaders

Apologies for the impromptu hiatus over the last couple of weeks. When I started to write this one it was the time when Mumbai, Maharashtra and India was mourning the loss of Balasaheb Thackrey. I was left wondering what his stature was to the common man and why did his life and work matter so much to the quintessentially apolitical population. So, I spent the last few days reading about him and inadvertently realized the virtue of people like him who end up being so precious for the society. For all that he was, I now feel that he brought with him that rare quality of leadership that has always been missing in independent India. With this, I was further intrigued to dig deep into the changes in the Indian political scenario pre and post independence i.e. a period where from a swarm of globally renowned leaders are now left to hunt for a suitable one.

India is the nation that saw the likes of M K Gandhi, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Jawahar Lal Nehru, Subhas Chandra Bose, Vallabhbhai Patel, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, C Rajagopalachari and so many more political leaders who shaped the future of India.  “But why not after?” was the question that kept bothering me until I realized that I was missing the simple points around ambitions and goals. A M. K. Gandhi became a Mahatma because of his unrelenting will to free India from the British dominance. A Mohammad Ali Jinnah became the Quaid-e-Azam for his impeccable role in creating the nation of Pakistan from the British dominion. Subhas Chandra Bose became Netaji because of his creation of the Indian National Army (INA) dedicated to fight the British out of India. So, all these men had a goal in their agenda and that goal was related to the masses. They represented the causes that the population behind them demanded.

So after the country was freed from the British dominance we had our own country and running it well became our goal. But was it ever a collective goal that we as citizens were passionate about? We had a J.L. Nehru becoming a 'Chacha', a Indira Gandhi becoming a 'Madam ji' and a A B Vajpayee becoming the 'Ram' of the this era and none of these perceived titles were related to the well being of the nation. They were leaders alright and big ones as well but they were political leaders not mass leaders. Balasaheb Thackrey was not a politically successful man but his appeal to the mass was such that his demise and that too a natural one with age and dropping health stopped everything in not only Mumbai but the whole of Maharashtra. This happened because he relentlessly used his efforts and might to safeguard the rights of the Marathi population in and out of Maharashtra. One may not like his radical thoughts and may not as well support his religious discrimination, but his work as a social activist was undoubtedly not polluted with any ulterior purpose.

We do need leaders. Why you may ask, and the simple answer to that is we need a face to identify with a cause. The world came to know of apartheid because of Nelson Mandela, they came to know of civil disobedience and non-violence from Mahatma Gandhi, they came to know of racial discrimination from a Martin Luther King Jr. These extraordinary gentlemen made these causes the goal of their lives'. They represented what the was necessary for their followers to lead a secured life. So when we are confused to choose the right leader what we actually need is to have a collective goal of 'Living Safe and Healthy'. Taking the political scenario in context, the rise of the regional parties in the national scenario as possible policy makers or rather breakers is the perfect example of us violating a common national goal. We are only concerned about our own well-being. There is a state government to take care of local issues. For national issues we need broader consensus and little to no delay. It's on us if we leave the nation to many regional parties all thinking in the direction of their own states or to one party with their focus on national interests only. The immediate example that comes to my mind was the tooth and nail fight between Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton in 2008 for becoming the Presidential candidate from the Democrats. From the moment it was clear that Obama had edged out Clinton, they got together as a unit and helped run the nation in the best possible manner. Hillary Clinton was made the Secretary of State and their competitive debate during the days running up to the Presidential nominations were just buried and their collective wisdom was used sensibly to address the issues that the nation faced then forward.

It's for us to emulate something similar and help make the nation prosper. We have made what Anna Hazare is today. We have empowered and encouraged a Arvind Kejriwal to get into active politics and bring a change. Are they good leaders? We don't know but what they have shown us is that the cause they support, that of 'Corruption Free Governance' is our cause and we need to relentlessly stick to it for a leader to come and walk us the distance.