If you are an Indian, you will end up talking and hearing about Politics and Politicians of the country more often than you could ever imagine. I mean, when two or more Indian men come together for a casual talk, may it be in their favorite hang-out or be it in some social party or may it be in some office lunch break, it has to be either the politics or cricket or movies that occupies more than half of the talking.
So it is, that I have been hearing so many things, reading so many things and thinking about many of these things which relate to Indian Politics and Indian Politicians. Thanks to the latest Anna Hazare movement and an extensive media and social networking follow-up on his movement, this information inflow has recently been escalated to a new level.
Unfortunately, I have now come to believe that most of these people who are talking [and sometimes, also apologizing for it later] are not sure what to say and expect. There is some Bollywood actor, who suddenly calls all politicians as unfit as they are Ganwar [illiterate], and then there are my friends and colleagues in India as well as here in Singapore, who think India needs ministers like those in Singapore - who are well educated, and better groomed for the job. There are those who want a change in Indian politicians for better, and most of them think this change can be brought upon by having an incorruptible representative, by having a younger representative, by having an educated representative. And then, there are also those who hate Indian politicians and the system of politics as a whole for it's capability to create utter chaos on some many occasions.
But when I think of it, I often feel that our definition of a good politician needs a major revamp and a distinct clarity, if we are to succeed in influencing the changes we desire as common voters.
Let's discuss a few things to understand what I mean by the above statement.
Firstly, Do you know what is the literacy rate in India? How much percentage of Indians are currently equipped with the basic education till secondary school?? Well, don't you start googling now - there is no need for googling. Because, no matter what that number is - it is NOT 100 percent.
And then, let us all go about 40 years back in time. Was this literacy rate 100 percent then? The answer is a BIG NO.
So, if we are to consider that average age of an Indian MP [Member of Parliament] is around 40 years, are we really correct in expecting 100 percent of our MPs to be literate? OR for that matter Well-Educated? Think realistically about it and try to find an answer with honesty and you will know that the whole "ganwar" argument is not really needed to be included in our discovery of better politicians.
Coming to the Ministers in Singapore, I have always heard one argument in favor of corruption by Indian politicos. They do not get salaries as high as the ministers in Singapore and hence they engage in lowly acts of corruption. This to me has always sounded like justifying a theft because although the thief was getting enough daily wage from his honest work, he felt it is not as good as some RICH people he knew in the nearby city.
Let us accept the fact that Singapore as a nation has developed itself well over the years and brought itself to be one of the rich countries of the world. Some may say it was a easy task, given the smaller geographical area this country has; nevertheless it is an achievement and it deserves a commendation. And just recently, I was reading an article in TODAY on how these salaries are actually derived. They take the average of top 1000 salaries in Singapore, find the 60% of this average and this acts as a median for ministerial salaries.
So, if the ministers in Singapore are getting HIGH salaries, it is because the top ranking 1000 salaries of non-minister employees and non-political executives in Singapore are equally high.
India as a nation has to work towards achieving a similar feat. No Politician should be allowed to steal his or her way to the wonderland of Riches by deploying corruption as his master-key.
That is what we should expect of Indian politicians. If they think they cannot afford to support their families within the salary that the MP gets, they should better not contest the elections. But, if they do contest, they need to acknowledge and adhere to the social obligation as a representative of people and should strive for the progress of India as a whole, so that everyone including them gets a better life with fatter salaries.
This is the reason why we need to support the cause of Anna Hazare. We need to support him to ensure a corruption-free governance of India, but our support has to be focused and oriented on this common goal. We cannot get diverted.
One more thing. What should we expect when we say we need well-groomed politicians in India? Let's get a basic difference clear between Singapore and India. The population represented by the entire lot of MPs in Singapore is about the same as the population represented by two or in some big cities just one MP in India.
What this means is that there are more heads per citizen to think on the strategies, more hands per person to implement those strategies and considering that Singapore is central to various shipping, logistics, air-traffic based industries and an important industrial hub for finance, banking and other sectors, I believe that the primary focus of these MPS is to be in the roles of Chief Executive Officers and ensure a smooth and progressive run of their country.
Contrary to this, thanks to the huge population that each MP represents, the MPs in India have a primary focus of taking care of people's well-being and they need to play a role of Human Resources Manager even while acting as a Chief Executive Officer. It is the same difference that exists between a Team Manager working for an Investment Bank IT team and a Team Manager working in an IT service based company. The first manger has more resources to spare and needs to execute his decisions appropriately to cater the needs of his business; on the other hand, the biggest asset of the second manager is the people working for him and hence his biggest responsibility is to make sure that all his team members are happy and motivated, because when that happens, he is sure that the project deadlines will be met and the business targets will be eventually achieved.
It is this exact difference which led me to say that it is OK that our politicos are not well-educated, but they need to be mass leaders. They need to know the pulse of people whom they are representing and they need to carry the lot along them towards betterment. A leader does not need to have a doctorate in philosophy or does not need to have a B-School degree. He or She needs to understand those they lead, represent the masses correctly and fiercely fight for the well-being of those they lead.
I know that deep down we all have this same thought about this argument. What better testimony can I give to this that, despite being a highly revered scholar in Finance and a great intellectual, Manmohan Singh has become a target for so many media and social networking assaults, which are sometimes humorous and many a times nasty. But at the same time, Anna Hazare, a man with only the basic education has become an idol for every Indian.
In India, it all boils down to who can lead better that who can read better!!
But then, there is a down side to this argument as well. Over the years, there has been some or other place, where a leadership void gets created and when that happens, it is the people who "control" the population of these places that take over the politics than the people who are leaders of these populations. This wicked control essentially involves goons threatening the people or business men throwing money at masses and then we also see some MPs who have a distinct criminal background. This is one vice we need to address as common voters because such elected control freaks do nothing for the people and only use their political profile to safeguard and expand their own evil interests. There is enough power in voters to ensure that such goons do not make it to the Parliament - it's high time, we realized this power.
It is also this leadership element, which sometimes makes people spend almost their entire life before they grow into ranks of corporators, MLAs and MPs and hence unless you have some extra-ordinary charisma or you have a family history, it is practically impossible in India to have younger leaders.
And that brings us to another aspect of Indian Politics. There are families in India for whom Politics has become a primary source of business and this business has been passed down from one generation to the another generation. Personally, I don't mind the "inheritance" clause of this as long as the successors are equally competent, clean and dedicated as their fathers and mothers who served the Indian people before them. What I don't want as a voter is the clause of "business" that these houses make out of politics. You can be fooled for your naivety only once, but if you are getting fooled for multiple generations, you are not fools, you are cowards who cannot stand up and vote against the exploitation you are facing.
An MP in India has to be socially obliged, dedicated, incorruptible, leader of the people who will work for their well-being and for the progress of this nation, at his or her own free will, by taking only the salary that Indian government has to offer.
That is what I have to demand of Indian Politics. That is what I seek for, as a common voter. That is what I am ready to put forth, justify and argue in every other discussion I participate in.
Tell me readers, what is it that you demand of the Indian Politics??
So it is, that I have been hearing so many things, reading so many things and thinking about many of these things which relate to Indian Politics and Indian Politicians. Thanks to the latest Anna Hazare movement and an extensive media and social networking follow-up on his movement, this information inflow has recently been escalated to a new level.
Unfortunately, I have now come to believe that most of these people who are talking [and sometimes, also apologizing for it later] are not sure what to say and expect. There is some Bollywood actor, who suddenly calls all politicians as unfit as they are Ganwar [illiterate], and then there are my friends and colleagues in India as well as here in Singapore, who think India needs ministers like those in Singapore - who are well educated, and better groomed for the job. There are those who want a change in Indian politicians for better, and most of them think this change can be brought upon by having an incorruptible representative, by having a younger representative, by having an educated representative. And then, there are also those who hate Indian politicians and the system of politics as a whole for it's capability to create utter chaos on some many occasions.
But when I think of it, I often feel that our definition of a good politician needs a major revamp and a distinct clarity, if we are to succeed in influencing the changes we desire as common voters.
Let's discuss a few things to understand what I mean by the above statement.
Firstly, Do you know what is the literacy rate in India? How much percentage of Indians are currently equipped with the basic education till secondary school?? Well, don't you start googling now - there is no need for googling. Because, no matter what that number is - it is NOT 100 percent.
And then, let us all go about 40 years back in time. Was this literacy rate 100 percent then? The answer is a BIG NO.
So, if we are to consider that average age of an Indian MP [Member of Parliament] is around 40 years, are we really correct in expecting 100 percent of our MPs to be literate? OR for that matter Well-Educated? Think realistically about it and try to find an answer with honesty and you will know that the whole "ganwar" argument is not really needed to be included in our discovery of better politicians.
Coming to the Ministers in Singapore, I have always heard one argument in favor of corruption by Indian politicos. They do not get salaries as high as the ministers in Singapore and hence they engage in lowly acts of corruption. This to me has always sounded like justifying a theft because although the thief was getting enough daily wage from his honest work, he felt it is not as good as some RICH people he knew in the nearby city.
Let us accept the fact that Singapore as a nation has developed itself well over the years and brought itself to be one of the rich countries of the world. Some may say it was a easy task, given the smaller geographical area this country has; nevertheless it is an achievement and it deserves a commendation. And just recently, I was reading an article in TODAY on how these salaries are actually derived. They take the average of top 1000 salaries in Singapore, find the 60% of this average and this acts as a median for ministerial salaries.
So, if the ministers in Singapore are getting HIGH salaries, it is because the top ranking 1000 salaries of non-minister employees and non-political executives in Singapore are equally high.
India as a nation has to work towards achieving a similar feat. No Politician should be allowed to steal his or her way to the wonderland of Riches by deploying corruption as his master-key.
That is what we should expect of Indian politicians. If they think they cannot afford to support their families within the salary that the MP gets, they should better not contest the elections. But, if they do contest, they need to acknowledge and adhere to the social obligation as a representative of people and should strive for the progress of India as a whole, so that everyone including them gets a better life with fatter salaries.
This is the reason why we need to support the cause of Anna Hazare. We need to support him to ensure a corruption-free governance of India, but our support has to be focused and oriented on this common goal. We cannot get diverted.
One more thing. What should we expect when we say we need well-groomed politicians in India? Let's get a basic difference clear between Singapore and India. The population represented by the entire lot of MPs in Singapore is about the same as the population represented by two or in some big cities just one MP in India.
What this means is that there are more heads per citizen to think on the strategies, more hands per person to implement those strategies and considering that Singapore is central to various shipping, logistics, air-traffic based industries and an important industrial hub for finance, banking and other sectors, I believe that the primary focus of these MPS is to be in the roles of Chief Executive Officers and ensure a smooth and progressive run of their country.
Contrary to this, thanks to the huge population that each MP represents, the MPs in India have a primary focus of taking care of people's well-being and they need to play a role of Human Resources Manager even while acting as a Chief Executive Officer. It is the same difference that exists between a Team Manager working for an Investment Bank IT team and a Team Manager working in an IT service based company. The first manger has more resources to spare and needs to execute his decisions appropriately to cater the needs of his business; on the other hand, the biggest asset of the second manager is the people working for him and hence his biggest responsibility is to make sure that all his team members are happy and motivated, because when that happens, he is sure that the project deadlines will be met and the business targets will be eventually achieved.
It is this exact difference which led me to say that it is OK that our politicos are not well-educated, but they need to be mass leaders. They need to know the pulse of people whom they are representing and they need to carry the lot along them towards betterment. A leader does not need to have a doctorate in philosophy or does not need to have a B-School degree. He or She needs to understand those they lead, represent the masses correctly and fiercely fight for the well-being of those they lead.
I know that deep down we all have this same thought about this argument. What better testimony can I give to this that, despite being a highly revered scholar in Finance and a great intellectual, Manmohan Singh has become a target for so many media and social networking assaults, which are sometimes humorous and many a times nasty. But at the same time, Anna Hazare, a man with only the basic education has become an idol for every Indian.
In India, it all boils down to who can lead better that who can read better!!
But then, there is a down side to this argument as well. Over the years, there has been some or other place, where a leadership void gets created and when that happens, it is the people who "control" the population of these places that take over the politics than the people who are leaders of these populations. This wicked control essentially involves goons threatening the people or business men throwing money at masses and then we also see some MPs who have a distinct criminal background. This is one vice we need to address as common voters because such elected control freaks do nothing for the people and only use their political profile to safeguard and expand their own evil interests. There is enough power in voters to ensure that such goons do not make it to the Parliament - it's high time, we realized this power.
It is also this leadership element, which sometimes makes people spend almost their entire life before they grow into ranks of corporators, MLAs and MPs and hence unless you have some extra-ordinary charisma or you have a family history, it is practically impossible in India to have younger leaders.
And that brings us to another aspect of Indian Politics. There are families in India for whom Politics has become a primary source of business and this business has been passed down from one generation to the another generation. Personally, I don't mind the "inheritance" clause of this as long as the successors are equally competent, clean and dedicated as their fathers and mothers who served the Indian people before them. What I don't want as a voter is the clause of "business" that these houses make out of politics. You can be fooled for your naivety only once, but if you are getting fooled for multiple generations, you are not fools, you are cowards who cannot stand up and vote against the exploitation you are facing.
An MP in India has to be socially obliged, dedicated, incorruptible, leader of the people who will work for their well-being and for the progress of this nation, at his or her own free will, by taking only the salary that Indian government has to offer.
That is what I have to demand of Indian Politics. That is what I seek for, as a common voter. That is what I am ready to put forth, justify and argue in every other discussion I participate in.
Tell me readers, what is it that you demand of the Indian Politics??
