Skip to main content

Does Rahul Gandhi have a Great Indian Dream? Will he become a great leader ever?

These are questions which must be top-of-the-mind for anyone who is even slightly politically conscious or committed. For merit or otherwise, the leadership of the largest serving party of independent India is being thrust upon this man. The big question is – will he be able to deliver ever? For, given the way the Indian political scenario is taking shape – with regional parties replacing national parties at the state level – if Rahul fails to deliver, it might take the party a few decades more to regroup and regain its position. In the framework of this context, it was indeed heartening to read Rahul’s latest views on reviving the Congress party. For the first time, someone could openly say that the party lacks inner party democracy and that the high-command system must give way – issues all Congress supporters and detractors have always been critical about. Probably thanks to his status of being the son of the dynasty, Rahul could say what everyone has always felt, but never dared to say. But that shouldn’t take away anything from the credit he deserves.

Let me, however, first begin on a critical note about the problem with Congress’ leadership over the years. One would remember how, during the past elections, while Pramod Mahajan used to go out scouting for ‘fresh blood’ and ‘talent’ (as per whatever his arguable definitions of these were), the Congress rested upon the Gandhi dynasty and newer dynasties being created within the party (the Scindias, Jindals, Deoras etc). While the Congress started off as a very democratic party, the fact is when Indira Gandhi – though extremely able – took over the mantle, the seeds of dynastic rule got sown. Though it’s a well researched and proven argument that children who grow up in close families seeing dynamic and visionary leadership within the family, often have the edge when it comes to doing the same job, it’s still hard to believe that in 60 years, the party couldn’t find any leader outside one family. Then, of course, is the fact that the way Indira saw Nehru leading from close quarters – and got influenced and thus could deliver as a great leader – was never the case with Rajiv Gandhi, who never really got to see his mother Indira in action from an involved distance. And now, worse is the case with Rahul. That’s why with time, the dynasty has only led to deteriorating leadership standards. Indira was the last leader in the Congress who really delivered; and it never felt even once that allowing a daughter to take over the party’s leadership was uncalled for. But with Rajiv – despite him being my personal favourite Indian politician – the leadership quality dropped. Nonetheless, the cleanliness and honesty written all over his face, his personal charisma and very polished communication power, coupled with the circumstances which brought the unwilling pilot to power, made people yet again overlook the fact that the largest party of the largest democracy of the world was clearly becoming undemocratic and dynastic.

To that effect, Sonia’s entry into politics has been more due to the party’s inefficiency in delivering an able leader, making them fall back upon the dynasty. Rahul’s political sojourn, however, is the most debated climb up the ladder. Those who have seen or heard him speak don’t see a powerful communicator in him (one of the most essential qualities of a good leader). Neither has Rahul seen any great leadership within the family from close quarters to have had inherited any of that. So, it looked fair to argue that all he has inherited is the dynastic surname. Well, that’s what it almost looked like till one started hearing his stray comments on corruption in the Indian system, reminding one of Rajiv’s historically bold statements like the one about how only 15% of money being spent by his government was reaching the people it was intended for.

Be that as it may be, the single recent comment by Rahul about the lack of inner party democracy within the Congress has clearly proven that though he may not have inherited what he didn’t see – viz, great leadership – or for that matter, what he didn’t get enough years to imbibe within himself, namely, his father’s charismatic communication style, Rahul surely has inherited something much more than the Gandhi name. He has inherited what he saw in his father and what he read most about him – he has inherited Rajiv’s honest way of looking at things, the ability to speak on issues openly and the willingness to try and change things. For starters, that’s a great sign for this Gandhi. Because, if communication skills are most important for a leader, then being principled and honest are most extremely important. So while Rahul might have lost some points till now on various fronts, he looks to be scoring well on the most critical traits that define a good leader.

However, leadership is about much more than just making heartfelt honest comments to a few mediapersons. And I sincerely hope Rahul doesn’t stop at this. He must look at this as the first run scored as the opener in a Test match. He has a long way to go before he scores a century, looks at bigger records and eventually wins the match for his team. He must be open to learning; and right now, I will give him only one tip. He must see videos of Rajiv Gandhi’s speeches and interactions with world leaders at world forums. He will know the definition of what is a world-class and cultured style of communication. If he can imbibe that and say the same things effectively to millions, he would score his first half century.

Unfortunately, in India, a half century (and often much lesser) is good enough to get the Prime Minister’s seat as well! If Rahul wants to score a century and more and secure a great future for himself and his party, there are some great books on leadership that he might well learn from. It will be a shame if a man with honest intentions, upon whom such a great opportunity is being thrust, fails to deliver. For him, I would personally love to share many more ideas about great leadership through these columns of mine... but only if I am sure that he is really serious about making the Great Indian Dream a reality! The question is, does he really have a Great Indian Dream? Or is it that like most others, even his is only a myopic vision of fulfilling his own short run dreams? Time will tell...

Comments

rapidanalysts said…
Arinandam story is good. It is more theoretical just because of the fact how many people after passing MBA degrees prove to be good managers and how many bad managers and unfortunately bad managers have increased aftert that MBA course. So it is not by reading on leadership leaders can be made. Truth is inherent urge say self actualization is the need in the person to do something what others have not done and that capability of analysing as to how to do some thing new is a kind of work that can be possible only when the person meets the cross section of people to propel his dreams in politics. When I teach MBA students I insist for a lot of field work and many does not just because it is tiresome. But that field work only will make a manager a better manager and in the field work you take spot decisions and that too on the basis of situations and interacations that is current at that time. What happened yesterday cannot happen today and what happens today may and may not happen tomorrow. so every leader to be should mould himself to fit into mileu of situational analysis and that should go with every leader to be. So to be a leader does not necessarily look for some education given by colleges but that is day to day working on the street after all every street is paved with gold. There is no need for dynastic succession and even if one gets into dynastic succession there is no guarantee he will survive as a leader and hence there is no need to worry about any dynastic successions. That is what every history of the world told us and made us to understand. Let us now not worry about the dynasties. Dynasties have a very limited period ofliving and hence Mahatma Gandhi once said why he is not taking care of his children like others. He said, I cannot make my children to do what I am doing and each has to learn in his own way. if he does he achieves and if not he losses. That is the great statement he told to Chakravarti Rajagopalachari when his daughter was to wed Devadas Gandhi. So Gandhi did a practical and meaning ful reasearch what really all the universities in the world could not do except some kind of peripheral work. They end it like in Economics we say 'everything being equal'. I wish my perception may be wrong and some one can comment on my perception when they read this comment. Thanks.

Popular posts from this blog

HATS OFF TO SHAH RUKH KHAN FOR STANDING HIS GROUND! IT’S NOW TIME TO END THIS HOOLIGANISM ONCE AND FOR ALL AND MAKE MUMBAI A UNION TERRITORY!

SRK is great! Not just because he is such a star, but because he genuinely is the most amazing person and has such a logical and sound brain. And now the entire nation idolizes this man all the more because he has become a symbol of sheer courage as well! And I think all it required was someone like him to stand up coolly and say, “This is not right, I’ve done nothing wrong and I won’t apologise.” When he was saying this, one could almost see the schoolboy rebel in him – not ready to cow down to an illogical man trying to act as the school headmaster. I am writing this editorial immediately after coming back from a show on NDTV 24x7, which was on the topic, “Is Sena the real power in Mumbai?” I was one of the speakers. It was sad to see Uddhav Thackeray, who was another speaker in that show, sticking to a stance that cannot be defended by any sense of logic. When questioned on the show by the NDTV anchor on his tendentious comments against SRK, Uddhav’s reply was that one should ask th

It’s important for Anna to become more flexible and respectful towards the democratic process, to give a bigger thrust to his movement

I was too young then to really remember it all; but I have heard from many people that the mass protests generated by the arrest of Anna Hazare are similar to the uprising called Total Revolution led by the late Jaiprakash Narayan in the early 1970s. In fact, it was the Total Revolution and the chaos that followed – and a historic blunder by Indira Gandhi – that led to the imposition of the Emergency in India in 1975. Many people are comparing today’s situation to the Emergency days. The people of India are so fed up and so disgusted with corruption and our rotten and corrupt system that the wave of protests we see is hardly surprising. I have often publicly called India not a democracy but a demonocracy where crooked politicians and their criminal cohorts are openly plundering the nation; well aware that a dysfunctional judicial system will allow them to get away. In almost all cases, they have actually got away and have hence acquired the arrogance and swagger of pirates who know

Don’t see “Slumdog Millionaire”. It sucks!

A phony poseur that has been made only to mock India for the viewing pleasure of the First World!! The emperor’s new clothes! That’s “Slumdog Millionaire” for you… Five minutes into this celebrated patchwork of illogical clichés and you are struck by the jarring dialogues. The cumbersome delivery in a language which doesn’t come naturally to most of the actors sounds like someone scratching on walls with one’s finger nails; it ruins the possibility of a connection… Had this film been made by an Indian director, it would’ve been trashed as a rotting old hat, which literally stands out only because of its stench, but since the man making it happens to be from the West, we’re all left celebrating the emperor’s new clothes. The film borrows an undoubtedly interesting narrative style – from films like “City of God” – but then uses it to weave in a collection of clichés from the Third World’s underbelly for the viewing pleasure of a First World audience. The real slumdog in the movie is not