Defining a great leader

ON June 8, I was in Meerut in Uttar Pradesh speaking to the Rotary Clubs of Western U.P. I did not have a prepared text. Before reaching Meerut, I really did not know what I was to speak about. A good sign as far as I am concerned!

One of the speakers said something about the sorry state of contemporary political leadership. This set me thinking about great men and leadership. When I spoke, I posed the question - how do we define a great man and a great leader. What criteria do we apply? I said my definition of a great man was a particular individual who, through his activity and personal example, had not only influenced but changed the life of a substantial number of human beings on central human issues. I suggested that Mahatma Gandhi was the outstanding example of what a great man and a great leader should be. When Gandhi came on the national scene, we were lying prostrate and helpless against the might of our colonial masters - the British. Mahatma Gandhi had no army behind him nor any lethal weapon but he had something the world had not tried before. Conducting a mass political campaign non-violently. Apart from giving us chetana he gave us satyagraha. Gandhi altered the mindset of a very large number of Indians of all classes. The Indian national movement became an inspiration for freedom struggles in various parts of the colonial world. He made the British empire look dated and morally bankrupt.

Next I took up the contemporary scene. Why was it that politicians were held in such contempt today. Generally we were all being tarred by the corruption brush. We are called bounders and scoundrels. This was not fair. There were upright politicians, honest politicians, I claimed. Those who criticised us and condemned us had really no ethical or moral right to belittle the whole lot of us. I said that if our armchair critics really felt deeply about the current political malaise, then the honest thing to do was to chuck up their careers and join the fray. I could speak without feeling embarrassed or superior because I resigned from the Indian Foreign Service five years before my retirement was due. If our professional critics, instead of rubbishing us, were prepared to make some sacrifice, as Gandhi's and Nehru's generations did, then there would be less room for scoundrels and bounders to occupy the political space. "Why don't some of you quit your jobs and come to politics? Why not join hands with us to carry out a moral guerrilla warfare against those who are polluting the political mainstream?"

I, not so humbly, also suggested that each one of us should ask himself or herself whether he/she was satisfied with the moral and ethical aspect of his or her life. This was an entirely individual exercise and the test had to be conducted each day - not by any group, not force or authority but solely individually. Introspection has to be combined with rigorous self-discipline, and an underpinning of moral consciousness as opposed to phony asceticism. This was not easy but it was the only way in which the contours of our political life could be redrawn and re-vitalised. From the response I got I became aware that my audience was listening, and from time to time even clapping. This was perhaps so because I did not spare myself. I talked straight, sincerely and candidly. I said I was familiar with my shortcomings and it was a blessing that I was at least aware of them. I tried to overcome them. Not a smooth undertaking, unless one is on good terms with oneself.

I came back feeling that I might have done some good!

ON June 3 , the Gandhi Smriti and Darshan Samiti organised a discussion on journalism today to observe the centenary of Indian Opinion which Gandhiji had launched in South Africa in 1903. The paper came out in four languages. One would have thought that leading mediapersons would come to Birla House where the meeting was held, but I was disappointed. However, I.K. Gujral, Bhishma Narain Singh and B.R. Nanda showed up. Gandhi was a remarkable journalist and the present tribe could learn a thing or two from the Mahatma, who never trivialised serious matters. The castrating clich is, "facts are sacred, opinion is free". For Gandhi Truth was sacred. I remember reading somewhere a judge saying to a criminal lawyer, "you have given the facts, now tell me the truth." As far as I know no paper reported the meeting the next day. Two days later The Hindu did carry a brief report.

On June 4, a well-attended meeting was held at the India International Centre to remember Mohit Sen. It was quite an occasion with Manmohan Singh presiding and Roshan Sethi reading excerpts from Mohit's brilliantly written biography. Bipin Chandra and V.P. Dutt spoke movingly of their friendship with Mohit. Nothing in the next day's newspapers - if I am not mistaken. I knew Mohit Sen, not well, but know him I did. He made you feel good inside. His was the acceptable face of communism.

WHERE are the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) for which Bush and Blair went to war, destroyed a country and almost destroyed the U.N.? So far none has been found. What does one do with M/s B and B. Which court of law does the world appeal to? Which court of justice can the Iraqis go to? Nowhere. With apologies to Marx, one could say, liars of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but the truth.

The Americans now want Indian troops to be sent to Iraq. A peace-keeping force or a stabilisation force! Under whom? For how long? Whom do they report to? U.S./U.K. or the U.N. (not effectively present)? Where will they be posted in Iraq? North, east, south or west? Why is this NDA government hell-bent on sending our troops to Iraq to salute and serve American G.I.s and British Tommies. The Congress party is not against sending troops; it wants them to serve under the U.N. flag and report to the U.N. Secretary-General.